Hallucination as Exploit: Evidence-Carrying Multimodal Agents

Tool-using LLM agents act on typed tool returns, records pairing provenance and categorical fields with numerical values. Runtime permission gates generally authorize the observed return and action, leaving the decision unprotected against small errors in how the return was bound to its source. We ask whether a candidate action stays authorized over a declared neighborhood of plausible correctly bound returns: one admissible binding fault plus bounded numerical drift. We prove that certifying the categorical and numerical channels separately does not compose: perturbations that are safe on each channel alone can jointly turn the same action unsafe. CAGE certifies this joint neighborhood directly, enumerating the discrete branches exactly and certifying the continuous perturbation within each branch. Across synthetic, policy-as-code, regulatory, and real-transaction settings, CAGE removes the in-budget false allows that accurate pointwise gates admit, while keeping a useful fraction of decisions autonomous. When the policy is executable, CAGE-Exact certifies the policy itself; otherwise CAGE-Lip and CAGE-RS certify a learned gate under an explicit, measured fidelity assumption.

Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents fail in a way no tool-selection or tool-security method addresses: they call tools that do not exist and pass arguments no schema declares. Existing defenses either pick the right tool (selection) or constrain what an agent may do with real tools (gating), both of which presuppose the emitted call refers to a real tool at all. We show this is a structural blind spot: a hallucinated call is by construction not a decision any gate made, so no gate can reject it. This paper is primarily a measurement and benchmark study. We give a five-class taxonomy of tool hallucination (H1-H5) and, as a reference point, the Resolution Rung: a training-free, closed-world resolver (registry membership plus a signature check) whose interest is where it must sit, not what it computes. We prove hallucination defense must precede any causal gate, and characterize the one irreducible residue (borrowed arguments schema-indistinguishable from a valid call). Across ten hosted models under two invocation surfaces we measure 322 genuine hallucinations; fabricated-tool calls concentrate on the unconstrained raw-JSON surface (34 vs. 3), and model scale does not help (a 675B model matches a 7-8B one). We then extend to the Model Context Protocol, where merging several servers into one namespace creates hallucination surfaces a single registry cannot express (a second taxonomy, M1-M5); on the live MCP surface we measure 154 hallucinations, including from frontier models that were clean on the single-registry surface, because collisions and shadowing are structural to the merge. We release the versioned Hallucinated-Tools Benchmark (HTB) so any resolver is comparable across submissions.

Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales. Such rationales are neither authorization nor reliable introspection. We present Explanation-Bound Tool Execution (EBTE), a claim-carrying mediation layer that converts decision-relevant rationale content into typed action claims and checks them against server-held intent, policy, payload, tool, risk, provenance, and freshness facts. EBTE cannot widen baseline authority: conflicts deny, incomplete or uncertain claims review, and only matching claims remain eligible for governed execution. We formalize this composition under explicit mediation and trusted-fact assumptions and implement a versioned reference profile with minimized audit packets. Across 136 authored conformance scenarios, the full profile matches all specified dispositions, admits none of 96 designated hard contradictions, and passes 232 metamorphic checks. A draft-only reference integration forwards none of 48 authored hard cases under EBTE while preserving all 16 soft-review and 4 aligned draft paths. In a frozen 2026-07-12 exploratory 224-attempt hosted-model record, the historical generation/runner agreement counts are 71/96, 66/96, and 19/32; a zero-call revalidation of the preserved minimized claims under the current pipeline yields 70/96, 65/96, and 17/32. In an AgentDojo-derived semantic check, existing high-risk controls make all 12 attack proposals non-allow, while EBTE resolves the task--proposal contradictions as deny. Together, these studies establish profile conformance and demonstrate the feasibility of server-checked action claims within the evaluated settings.