Fake News, Real Crashes: Information Injection Attacks on LLM Financial Trading Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents already trade real capital, and builders copy a few published designs that share models and news feeds, so one shock reaches many agents at once. We present FARSIGHT (Financial Agent Robustness and Security Investigation and Global Holistic Taxonomy), a systematization that rates trading agents on robustness to market stress and on security against source manipulation, agent compromise, and agents acting as attackers, and checks the ratings against released code. Across 15 academic schemes, no paper describes a halt that skips LLM inference or combines source provenance with cross-source corroboration, and the 7 code releases enforce no stop-loss or position limit outside the LLM. Three LLMs sell whole positions on a fake headline and on real hoaxes, including the fake press release behind the 2000 Emulex crash. In a simulated market driven by these decisions, one fake headline crashes the market in all runs with 400 agents, and 400 agents that sell when prices fall nearly double a 2010-sized crash. The pause that U.S. exchanges apply to large stocks starts in no headline run, whereas automatic halts and hard loss limits outside the model remove both effects. Restated as a domain-independent threat model, FARSIGHT maps the same gaps onto agents in healthcare, law, software, and crypto, where compromised agents spread harm as worms and as cascades. We derive 14 open problems and urge deployers to corroborate sources, keep interrupts that bypass the model, and enforce loss limits outside it.

Large language model (LLM) pricing agents may respond to how market data is presented, even when its numerical values remain unchanged. We introduce market signal injection (MSI), an attack that manipulates numerical formatting, competitor ordering, or qualitative market commentary without issuing explicit instructions. We evaluate nine open-weight models in simulated Bertrand duopoly and triopoly markets and three proprietary models in duopoly markets. Sentiment-based attacks produce the largest behavioral shifts, which propagate to other firms and alter profits and consumer surplus. Susceptibility varies across model families, and larger models are not consistently more robust. Matched neutral-text controls and a rule-based agent support a framing-based account of these shifts under the fixed demand parameters of our simulation. Episode-held-out probes distinguish baseline from attacked activations in all eleven re-evaluated model--condition pairs: linear AUC is 1.00 and MLP AUC ranges from 0.93 to 0.99. This separability does not by itself identify harmful pricing decisions. Input canonicalization removes the tested sentiment attacks, while decision boundary anchoring, which combines prompt constraints with output projection, provides partial mitigation under the tested adaptive attacks. These results identify data presentation as an attack surface for LLM pricing agents and motivate defenses that account for interactions among agents.

People increasingly use LLM agents for multi-turn financial recommendations, where the agent pulls market data through tools and tracks user preferences across turns. When tool outputs are manipulated, the recommendations stop matching the user's stated risk profile, but because standard metrics like NDCG only score general relevance, risky and safe stocks score alike, so the metric says nothing went wrong. We call this gap evaluation blindness. We replay 23-turn financial advisory conversations across eight language models, running each dialogue twice with clean and manipulated tool data. Quality scores stay nearly identical to clean sessions while the agents produce risk-mismatched recommendations in 65-99% of turns, unanimous across all eight models. The mechanism is visible turn-by-turn: 80% of risk-score citations across 1,840 turns reproduce the manipulated value verbatim, not a single turn pushes back, and safe-language framing of high-risk stocks ranges from 14% (Qwen2.5-7B) to 69% (Claude Sonnet 4.6). The property that makes frontier models good agents, faithfully grounding their reasoning in tool outputs, also makes them follow manipulated ones. The damage is not memory-driven: contaminating only the current turn still produces 95% of the violations. The model internally distinguishes the manipulation (sparse autoencoder features separate adversarial from random perturbations), but this does not translate into safer output. Activation-level interventions recover under 6% of the safety gap, prompt-level self-verification fails because the self-check reads the same manipulated data, and a parametric cross-check that flags contamination at 99-100% per turn on a frontier model still leaves aggregate suitability unchanged: the agent identifies the tampering and recommends it anyway.