Function calling represents the core capability of agentic large language models (LLMs). Existing research has focused on enhancing LLMs function-calling accuracy through fine-tuning, reinforcement learning (RL), and multi-agent frameworks, particularly for native function-calling LLMs. This work demonstrates that LLMs achieve superior accuracy in function calling in instruction-following contexts (i.e., standard user-assistant interactions) rather than a tool calling context. We introduce Instruction-Followed Function Calling (IFFC), a novel framework that decouples function-calling logic from the primary LLM and delegates it to a dedicated smaller model operating within the instruction-following paradigm. Our method consistently outperforms both native function calling (NFC) and prompt-based function calling (PFC) baselines, with particularly strong gains on reasoning-oriented LLMs. Furthermore, we demonstrate that IFFC maintains robust performance under aggressive quantization, enabling efficient on-device deployment without significant accuracy degradation. This work establishes a new paradigm for reliable, resource-efficient function calling in edge-computing scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Instruction-Followed Function Calling (IFFC) framework against traditional function calling approach.
Memory Footprint
Accuracy Degradation
Model
FP16
Q4KM
Reduction
FP16
Q4KM
Δ (pts)
Rel. Drop
Gemma-3 1B
2.0 GB
0.8 GB
60.0%
23.9%
8.7%
–15.2
63.6%
Gemma-3 4B
8.6 GB
3.3 GB
61.6%
81.9%
60.4%
–21.5
26.3%
Gemma-3 12B
24.3 GB
8.1 GB
66.7%
91.3%
69.0%
–22.3
24.4%
Phi-4 Mini
7.7 GB
2.5 GB
67.5%
74.9%
48.2%
–26.7
35.6%
Qwen-3 0.6B (NoThink)
1.5 GB
0.5 GB
66.7%
62.3%
16.8%
–45.5
73.0%
Table 1: Impact of Q4KM Quantization on Memory Usage and IFFC Accuracy (BFCL V3 Non-Live)
Model
IFFC (Ours)
PFC
NFC
BFCL V3 Live (Average)
Phi-4 Mini
44.3
62.5
30.0
Qwen-3 0.6B Think
57.7
53.2
53.0
Qwen-3 1.7B Think
72.8
73.6
74.6
Qwen-3 4B Think
86.7
82.8
81.5
Qwen-3 8B Think
83.3
78.3
75.5
Table 2: Average Function Calling Accuracy (%) Over Four Categories on BFCL V3
BFCL V3 Live
BFCL V3 Non-Live
Model
Simple
Multiple
Parallel
Par. Mult.
Simple
Multiple
Parallel
Par. Mult.
Qwen-3 4B Think IFFC (Ours)
90.3
81.5
87.5
87.5
96.0
97.5
92.5
90.5
Qwen-3 4B Think NFC
87.6
79.9
75.0
83.3
75.3
96.5
92.0
90.5
Claude 4.5 Sonnet NFC
89.5
78.9
87.5
83.3
72.6
95.5
94.5
92.0
GPT 5.2 NFC
71.7
70.4
68.8
58.3
72.9
88.0
89.0
77.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro NFC
77.9
62.2
68.8
62.5
66.4
86.0
69.0
40.0
Table 3: Model Accuracy (%) Comparison on BFCL V3 Live and Non-Live Benchmarks
Model & Method
Simple (%)
Multiple (%)
Parallel (%)
Par. Mult. (%)
BFCL V3 Live
Gemma-3 1B IFFC (Ours)
13.9
7.1
31.3
8.3
Gemma-3 1B PFC
30.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
Gemma-3 4B IFFC (Ours)
77.1
63.7
75.0
54.2
Gemma-3 4B PFC
72.9
62.8
37.5
29.2
Gemma-3 12B IFFC (Ours)
86.4
78.5
87.5
79.2
Table 4: Comparison of Gemma-3 Models using IFFC vs. PFC across BFCL V3 Live and Non-Live Categories.
BFCL V3 Live (%)
BFCL V3 Non-Live (%)
Model
No-Think
Think
No-Think
Think
Qwen-3 0.6B
22.9
57.7
62.3
76.5
Qwen-3 1.7B
65.0
72.8
81.1
84.0
Qwen-3 4B
74.6
86.7
91.9
94.1
Qwen-3 8B
74.5
83.3
93.8
94.9
Table 5: Performance Comparison of Qwen-3 in No-Think vs. Think Modes under the IFFC Framework
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Non-Live Simple
Non-Live Multiple
Model
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
Gemma-3 1B
21.8%
3.6%
43.5%
-
36.0%
21.5%
38.5%
-
Gemma-3 4B
87.6%
87.5%
64.3%
-
85.0%
84.0%
91.5%
-
Gemma-3 12B
93.2%
94.0%
77.3%
-
93.0%
93.5%
95.0%
-
Phi-4 Mini
62.7%
72.7%
67.9%
38.0%
76.5%
63.5%
69.0%
0.0%
Granite-4 Micro
-
81.2%
-
-
-
82.0%
-
-
Appendix
Table 6: Non-Live Evaluation: Simple and Multiple Categories
Non-Live Parallel
Non-Live Parallel Multiple
Model
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
Gemma-3 1B
22.0%
-
2.0%
-
16.0%
9.5%
2.0%
-
Gemma-3 4B
82.5%
-
56.5%
-
72.5%
70.0%
41.0%
-
Gemma-3 12B
90.0%
-
90.0%
-
89.0%
88.5%
73.0%
-
Phi-4 Mini
78.5%
-
16.0%
0.0%
82.0%
56.5%
14.5%
0.0%
Granite-4 Micro
-
80.0%
-
-
-
78.5%
-
-
Appendix
Table 7: Non-Live Evaluation: Parallel and Parallel Multiple Categories
Live Simple
Live Multiple
Model
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
Gemma-3 1B
13.9%
8.8%
30.0%
-
3.1%
7.1%
10.5%
-
Gemma-3 4B
72.4%
77.1%
72.9%
-
63.5%
63.7%
62.8%
-
Gemma-3 12B
85.2%
86.4%
84.9%
-
74.5%
78.5%
70.9%
-
Phi-4 Mini
42.0%
39.0%
55.0%
40.3%
-
47.6%
59.5%
50.3%
Granite-4 Micro
-
68.9%
-
-
-
60.4%
-
-
Appendix
Table 8: Live Evaluation: Simple and Multiple Categories
Live Parallel
Live Parallel Multiple
Model
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
IFFC FP16
IFFC Q4KM
PFC
NFC
Gemma-3 1B
31.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-
Gemma-3 4B
68.8%
75.0%
37.5%
-
54.2%
49.9%
29.2%
-
Gemma-3 12B
87.5%
87.5%
87.5%
-
79.2%
79.2%
62.5%
-
Phi-4 Mini
-
50.0%
68.8%
0.0%
-
37.5%
66.7%
29.2%
Granite-4 Micro
-
75.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 9: Live Evaluation: Parallel and Parallel Multiple Categories
General Purpose Models
Claude Series
Category
GPT 4.1
GPT 4.1
Gemini
Grok 4
Kimi
O4
GPT
Claude
Claude
Mini
2.5 Pro
07-09
K2 Inst.
mini
5.2
Opus 4.5
Sonnet 4.5
Simple
73.8%
74.2%
66.4%
73.5%
78.2%
70.6%
72.9%
76.8%
72.6%
Multiple
93.5%
90.5%
86.0%
92.5%
93.0%
84.5%
88.0%
95.5%
95.5%
Parallel
93.0%
91.0%
69.0%
88.5%
85.5%
0.0%
89.0%
93.5%
94.5%
Parallel Multiple
87.0%
86.0%
40.0%
87.0%
84.0%
0.0%
77.5%
88.5%
92.0%
Appendix
Table 10: Proprietary Models Baseline (Native Function Calling)
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Computing, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · Huazhong University of Science and Technology · Nanyang Technological University