ToolHACE: A Dataset for Detecting Hallucinations in Tool-Based LLM Responses

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.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as autonomous agents that invoke external tools. However, this capability introduces tool hallucination, selecting incorrect tools or generating invalid calls. Existing mitigation methods report substantial improvements, yet we identify a previously overlooked failure mode that we term Hallucination Escape. These methods reduce hallucination on the tool configuration they are tuned on but increase it on other configurations, canceling out the gain. We further investigate this phenomenon and find that hallucination rises sharply when a model's intrinsic tool-use tendencies conflict with the current tool configuration, and that existing methods reinforce rather than suppress these tendencies, which in turn contributes to hallucination escape. Building on these findings, we propose EscapeGuard, a training-free inference-time method that combines conflict-aware gating with configuration-derived attention enhancement to mitigate tool hallucination while preventing hallucination escape. Across six benchmarks on various models, EscapeGuard reduces tool-selection hallucination by 9.0 pp and suppresses hallucination escape, lowering the cross-configuration mean by 23.7 pp and achieving an 89.1% net improvement in paired-query evaluation. We hope this work can encourage evaluation beyond a single tool configuration and pave the way for more reliable tool-using LLM agents.

Span-level hallucination detection pinpoints unsupported content in LLM outputs, enabling actionable feedback and targeted mitigation. Existing evaluations for span-level hallucination detection methods are fragmented across tasks, annotation formats, and metrics, and most span-level datasets cover only a single NLG domain, making it difficult to assess whether a detection method actually generalizes across tasks and domains. In this paper, we introduce SHAM-Bench (Span-level Hallucination Benchmark Across Multiple Tasks), a unified benchmark for span-level hallucination detection spanning six NLG tasks, aggregated from existing human-annotated datasets totaling 6,461 examples under a common schema and evaluation protocol. Using SHAM-Bench, we evaluate existing hallucination detection methods and find that fine-tuned detectors often perform well in-domain but degrade under distribution shift, whereas prompt-based methods with reasoning are more robust across tasks. Our analysis further shows that subtle unsupported content remains difficult to detect and span-level evaluation is still challenged by ambiguous span boundaries and noisy labels. We release the dataset, evaluation code, and a public leaderboard to support future research on broadly generalizable hallucination detection.