RideWay: Benchmarking Efficient Task Completion for Tool-Using Language Agents
Authors: Qingnuan Han, Boli Fang, Mingzhi Hou, Claire Liu
Abstract
AI agents are usually evaluated by whether they complete a task. In interactive service settings, a successful agent can still frustrate users by asking repeated questions, performing redundant searches, or making avoidable revisions. We introduce RideWay, an efficiency-centered benchmark for ridehailing agents in a stateful tool-calling environment, together with Efficiency Utility, a success-gated metric that discounts successful trajectories for excess tool calls and user-facing turns relative to task-specific reference effort. Human paired preferences calibrate the relative penalties, reflecting an aggregate service-workflow trade-off: extra dialogue often creates visible friction, whereas extra tool use can sometimes verify constraints or preserve user intent. Across 58 tasks and 24 models, the fitted penalty for excess turns is about twice that for excess tool calls. On task-disjoint held-out preferences, Efficiency Utility achieves 78.7% accuracy overall: 90.6% when trajectories differ in turns, but chance-level accuracy when they differ solely in tool calls - the axis on which human annotators agree least. RideWay therefore makes interaction efficiency measurable alongside task success, while exposing the boundary of count-based tool-use evaluation.
Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails. A model that never calls a needed tool and a model that calls the tool but ignores the result can look similar under final task accuracy. We introduce ToolFailBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures across 1,000 tasks in finance, medicine, law, cybersecurity, and real estate. Tool-required tasks return values the model wouldn't guess, forcing it to trust the tool while control tasks attach the same tools but should be answered directly. We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use, using a rule classifier and two LLM judges aggregated by majority vote. Across 19 headline models, the best reaches 86.33% Clean Tool-Use Rate, showing that faithful tool use is not saturated. More importantly, models with similar aggregate scores fail in different ways: most stay disciplined on no-tool controls, while Llama-3.1 models show an Always-Call pattern, and at the same parameter scale Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B differ by 89 percentage points on control-task accuracy. Tool-use evaluation should measure not only whether agents call tools, but whether they use tool outputs correctly and avoid tools when none is needed.
Tool-calling agents are evaluated on tool selection, parameter accuracy, and scope recognition, yet LLM trajectory assessments remain inherently post-hoc. Disconnected from the active execution loop, such assessments identify errors that are usually addressed through prompt-tuning or retraining, and fundamentally cannot course-correct the agent in real time. To close this gap, we move evaluation into the execution loop at inference time: a specialized reviewer agent evaluates provisional tool calls prior to execution, shifting the paradigm from post-hoc recovery to proactive evaluation and error mitigation. In practice, this architecture establishes a clear separation of concerns between the primary execution agent and a secondary review agent. As with any multi-agent system, the reviewer can introduce new errors while correcting others, yet no prior work to our knowledge has systematically measured this tradeoff. To quantify this tradeoff, we introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics: helpfulness measures the percentage of base agent errors that feedback corrects; harmfulness measures the percentage of correct responses that feedback degrades. These metrics directly inform reviewer design by revealing whether a given model or prompt provides net positive value. We evaluate our approach on BFCL (single-turn) and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks. Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o. Automated prompt optimization via GEPA provides an additional +1.5-2.8%. Together, these results demonstrate a core advantage of separating execution and review: the reviewer can be systematically improved through model selection and prompt optimization, without retraining the base agent.
Interactive travel planning has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are deployed to manage evolving preferences and unexpected disruptions over multiple turns. Such settings require models to make complex, profile-conditioned planning decisions. However, existing benchmarks often evaluate feasibility, personalization, or interaction in relatively isolated settings. We therefore introduce Trip+ to measure the ability of agents to plan travel holistically. In Trip+, given traveler profiles and dynamic interactions, agents must generate and revise minute-level itineraries. End-to-end traveler experiences are evaluated via an LLM-based simulator, enabling the assessment of subjective metrics like fatigue. Our scenarios range from simple request resolutions to complex environment-driven replanning. We evaluate 18 LMs and find a consistent gap in experiential quality. Models favor technically feasible but exhausting itineraries that diverge sharply from profiled traveler preferences.