Scores Are Not Decisions: Cost-Aware Stopping for Tool Acquisition in LLM Agents
Authors: Yicheng Feng, Yan Zhang, Yan Cheng, Wei Qi
Organizations: School of Advanced Manufacturing and Robotics, Peking University · Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University · Business School, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics · Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University
As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure. Routers and retrievers can rank candidate tools by relevance, but a ranking alone does not determine how many are worth selecting. Existing approaches leave acquisition under heterogeneous costs unaddressed. We formulate this decision as cost-aware marginal decision-focused stopping (CAM-DF) over ranked tool prefixes, with CAM-DF-lite as a compact interpretable variant. We train directly on the offline gap between stopping now and the best continuation: its sign labels the decision, its magnitude weights each error by the payoff at stake. We prove this objective is Bayes-aligned with the stopping target and that score-only rules are suboptimal under heterogeneous costs. We evaluate on 1,343 tasks across five tool-use domains. On τ-bench Retail, CAM-DF attains the highest payoff among deployable methods, with gains over a predict-then-threshold baseline across all five ranking sources and two cost regimes. Our approach is state-of-the-art under heterogeneous costs and high cost pressure, with larger gains under weaker rankings. In live execution, CAM-DF exposes the agent to 37% fewer tools than full access while maintaining comparable task success. The CAM-DF family is a lightweight pre-execution plugin that turns existing tool rankings into lower-cost acquisition decisions without fine-tuning the underlying LLM.
Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open and one closed-source frontier models under two harnesses, one conditioning on only the current turn and its search results, the other on the full execution traces, across four web-search tools and three tasks. In every setting, we find that a model's perceived need and utility are frequently misaligned with the true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility from the models' hidden states. These estimators drive simple controllers that improve decision quality and yield stronger task performance than the self-perceived baseline for most of the open-source models.
Large language model agents increasingly rely on external tools, but larger tool menus can reduce reliability and efficiency by increasing wrong-tool calls, premature actions, and token cost. Existing tool-selection methods often optimize semantic relevance, exposing tools whose names or descriptions match the user request. We argue that relevance is insufficient: a tool may be related to the task while still being unnecessary or premature at the current step. We propose Causal Minimal Tool Filtering (CMTF), a training-free method that selects tools by causal sufficiency. CMTF uses lightweight precondition-effect contracts to expose only the minimal next-step tool frontier needed to advance from the current state toward the user goal. Across multi-step tool-use tasks, we compare CMTF with all-tools exposure, keyword retrieval, state-aware filtering, and causal-path ablations, measuring task success, wrong-tool calls, premature actions, tool exposure, and token cost. In the main benchmark with 102 tasks, 100 tools, four LLM backends, and 2448 task-method-model runs, CMTF matches the strongest causal baseline in aggregate success while reducing visible tools from 100 to one per step and reducing token usage by about 90% relative to all-tools exposure.
Tool-augmented reasoning has become a popular direction for LLM-based agents, and it is widely assumed to improve reasoning and reliability. However, we demonstrate that this consensus does not always hold: in the presence of semantic distractors, tool-augmented reasoning does not necessarily outperform native CoT. To explain this performance gap, we propose a Factorized Intervention Framework that isolates the cost of prompt formatting, the overhead of the tool-calling protocol, and the actual gain from executing tools. Our analysis reveals a critical tradeoff: under semantic noise, the gains from tools often fail to offset the "tool-use tax", which is the performance degradation introduced by the tool-calling protocol itself. To address this, we introduce G-STEP, a lightweight inference-time gate to mitigate protocol-induced errors. While this yields partial recovery, our findings suggest that more substantial improvements still require strengthening the model's intrinsic reasoning and tool-interaction capabilities.