SSR: Structural Signal Retriever for Scalable Agent Discovery in LLM-Orchestrated Multi-Agent Systems
Organizations: Institute of Computing – State University of Campinas, Brazil
Abstract
Large-scale multi-agent ecosystems require mechanisms for discovering suitable agents without exposing entire registries to a large language model (LLM) orchestrator. The challenge is not only to retrieve relevant Agent Cards from a growing registry, but also to maintain a compact candidate context, since each additional candidate increases prompt size, inference cost, latency, and the risk of exceeding the model context window. We formulate this problem as candidate-context scalability and propose the Structural Signal Retriever (SSR), our deterministic and training-free retrieval method designed for Agent Card discovery. SSR derives structural lexical signals from capability-bearing Agent Card fields, weights them using inverse document frequency (IDF), and uses an Inverted Signal Index (ISI) for selective candidate scoring. We evaluate SSR using a synthetic agent benchmark, a public MS MARCO adaptation, and end-to-end LLM orchestration. At 1,000 agents, SSR reduces LLM input by 98.8% and orchestration latency by 70.9% relative to full-catalog orchestration. On MS MARCO, IDF improves retrieval effectiveness within the structural representation, while the ISI preserves retrieval effectiveness and reduces explicitly scored passages by 96.8%. End-to-end experiments show that candidate pre-selection maintains a compact candidate context as registry size grows and avoids the operational failures observed with full-catalog orchestration. These results support SSR as an Agent-Card-native, traceable retrieval mechanism for candidate-context scalability.
Figures & tables
| Component | Value |
|---|---|
| Agent Cards | 1000 |
| Base / capability twins | 850 / 150 |
| Queries | 250 |
| Application domains | 24 |
| Capability taxonomy | 144 skills |
| Language | English |
| Agents | Method | Agent Cards | Prompt Tokens | Est. Cost (USD) | Latency (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Full catalog | 10.0 | 771 | 0.000120 | 0.722 |
| 10 | SSR | 10.0 | 771 | 0.000120 | 0.715 |
| 100 | Full catalog | 100.0 | 6,481 | 0.000976 | 1.165 |
| 100 | SSR | 10.0 | 769 | 0.000120 | 0.748 |
| 500 | Full catalog | 500.0 | 31,890 | 0.004788 | 2.423 |
| 500 | SSR | 10.0 | 767 | 0.000119 | 0.779 |
| Method | R@1 | R@3 | R@5 | R@10 | MRR@10 | Mean Lat. (ms) | Avg. Passages Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TF-IDF (dot product) | 0.0087 | 0.0266 | 0.0398 | 0.0619 | 0.0221 | 906.9 | – |
| BM25 | 0.1026 | 0.2255 | 0.2923 | 0.3890 | 0.1829 | 822.6 | – |
| Structural Overlap + ISI | 0.0798 | 0.1768 | 0.2351 | 0.3209 | 0.1462 | 937.2 | 286,638 |
| Structural + IDF (full scan) | 0.0834 | 0.1872 | 0.2510 | 0.3378 | 0.1544 | 69,848.3 | 8,841,823 |
| SSR (Structural + IDF + ISI) | 0.0834 | 0.1872 | 0.2510 | 0.3378 | 0.1544 | 941.5 | 286,638 |
| Method | Cand. Recall | Cond. Acc. | E2E Acc. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSR | 100 | 0.980 | 1.0000 | 0.980 |
| BM25 | 100 | 0.980 | 1.0000 | 0.980 |
| SSR | 500 | 0.980 | 0.9898 | 0.970 |
| BM25 | 500 | 0.980 | 0.9796 | 0.960 |
| SSR | 1000 | 0.980 | 0.9796 | 0.960 |
| BM25 | 1000 | 0.980 | 0.9898 | 0.970 |
| Method | E2E Acc. | Attempt | API Success | Pool | Tokens | Est. Cost (USD) | Latency (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSR | 100 | 0.980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 4.34 | 444 | 0.000072 | 0.674 |
| BM25 | 100 | 0.980 | 0.985 | 1.000 | 4.34 | 444 | 0.000072 | 0.620 |
| Full catalog | 100 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 100 | 8,154 | 0.001227 | 1.099 |
| SSR | 500 | 0.970 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 12.06 | 1,125 | 0.000175 | 0.643 |
| BM25 | 500 | 0.960 | 0.990 | 1.000 | 12.06 | 1,078 | 0.000167 | 0.628 |
| Full catalog | 500 | 0.990 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 500 | 40,705 | 0.006110 | 2.449 |
| Approach | Primary setting | Representation / mechanism | Candidate control | Relation to this work |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tool-to-Agent Retrieval [ 8 ] | Tool and agent retrieval | Shared vector representations with explicit tool–agent relations | Retrieval-ranked subset | Dense relational alternative for tool-to-agent discovery |
| Agent-as-a-Graph [ 9 ] | Tool and agent retrieval | Vector retrieval plus explicit graph relationships | Graph- and ranking-derived subset | Uses richer relational structure than SSR |
| ToolScope [ 7 ] | Large-scale LLM tool use | Tool merging and context-aware filtering | Context-dependent filtered toolset | Shares the goal of reducing LLM candidate context |
| ACE-Router [ 10 ] | MCP and agent routing | Learned history-aware routing | Router-selected candidates | Learned, context-dependent alternative |
| AgentRouter [ 36 ] | Collaborative multi-agent QA | Knowledge-graph-guided supervised routing | Learned routing distribution | Models contextual and relational agent structure |
| Adaptive shortlist depth [ 18 ] | LLM tool selection | Query-dependent shortlist-depth policy | Adaptive depth | Directly studies candidate-depth selection |
Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Multi-agent large language model systems coordinate multiple AI agents to solve tasks through communication, specialization, shared tools, and memory.
See all 1,040 papers