The Control Layer Behind Rule-Following Agents Trading Across Market Conditions

A growing body of work explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be embedded in trading systems as agents that perceive market information, retrieve context, reason about decisions, emit tradable actions, and adapt under market feedback. This paper reframes LLM-based trading agents as expert-system decision pipelines and presents an audit-oriented evidence map of 77 included studies in a protocol-coded snapshot screened through 2026-03-09. A primary empirical subset (n=19) satisfies the minimum boundary of Action Output plus Closed-Loop Evaluation; the remaining 58 included studies are retained as background and design context. The central empirical finding is protocol incomparability: within the primary subset, only 2/19 studies report extractable time-consistent split protocols, 1/19 reports an explicit transaction-cost model, 1/19 documents universe or survivorship handling, 11/19 report execution timing or semantics, 15/19 are coded as R0, and no study reaches R3 reproducibility. We therefore use Architecture-Capability-Adaptation as a working analytical lens rather than a validated taxonomy, and we foreground the evidence ledger, reproducibility audit, and reporting checklist as the main contributions. The resulting survey shows that architectural experimentation is expanding rapidly, while comparable evaluation protocols, execution semantics, and reproducible artifacts remain the field's immediate bottlenecks.

We present a continuous, population-scale measurement record of autonomous language-model trading agents operating in production across two systems with one design lineage: DX Terminal Pro (3,505 user-funded vaults trading real ETH in Base memecoin markets for 21 days, February to March 2026) and the DXAP live alpha fleet (500 to 599 user-created agents all-history, 91 to 117 concurrently active, trading Hyperliquid perpetuals, June to August 2026). The record spans roughly six months, 7.5M single-model invocations with about 300K onchain actions, and a further 231,638 multi-tool turns producing 14,596 fills. Four findings carry the paper. First, the operating layer determines behavior more than anything written in strategy text: a risk slider explains leverage (+0.425 per level), agent fixed effects absorb 60% of variance, and a leaderboard render boundary causally routes selection (regression discontinuity 1.75x at the top-3 cut). Second, sizing is volatility-blind: median leverage is 5.0x in every volatility sextile, and one posture-slider cell (11% of the book) holds 62% of liquidations. Third, agents capture almost none of the upside they reach: 43.2% of positions saw at least +300 bps of favorable excursion within 24h, yet 49.3% of those closed with a negative trade return; a mechanical bracket recovers +39.0 bps per position. Fourth, neither fleet shows a directional edge. The DXAP fleet is not profitable and trails a matched Hyperliquid retail benchmark (41% vs. 50% roundtrip win rate). A paired-replay league of frontier models on 416 captured production scenarios finds decision quality statistically indistinguishable at this horizon, while choice stability differs sharply across model families. Every headline survives day-clustered inference, permutation nulls, and a common-fee restatement; the paper closes with a 17-rule methodology canon bought with our own retractions.

Evaluating AI agents in finance faces two key challenges: static benchmarks require costly expert annotation yet miss the dynamic decision-making central to real-world trading, while LLM-based judges introduce uncontrolled variance on domain-specific tasks. We introduce TraderBench, a benchmark that addresses both issues. It combines expert-verified static tasks (knowledge retrieval, analytical reasoning) with adversarial trading simulations scored purely on realized performance-Sharpe ratio, returns, and drawdown-eliminating judge variance entirely. The framework features two novel tracks: crypto trading with four progressive market-manipulation transforms, and options derivatives scoring across P&L accuracy, Greeks, and risk management. Trading scenarios can be refreshed with new market data to prevent benchmark contamination. Evaluating 13 models (8B open-source to frontier) on ~50 tasks, we find: (1) 8 of 13 models score ~33 on crypto with <1-point variation across adversarial conditions, exposing fixed non-adaptive strategies; (2) extended thinking helps retrieval (+26 points) but has zero impact on trading (+0.3 crypto, -0.1 options). These findings reveal that current agents lack genuine market adaptation, underscoring the need for performance-grounded evaluation in finance.