# A Functionality-Grounded Benchmark for Evaluating Web Agents in E-commerce Domains

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15832 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15832/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 15 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [GPT-4V(ision) is a Generalist Web Agent, if Grounded](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01614/) (2024)
- [WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13919/) (2024)
- [WebLINX: Real-World Website Navigation with Multi-Turn Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05930/) (2024)
- [An Illusion of Progress? Assessing the Current State of Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01382/) (2025)
- [The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05467/) (2024)
- [WebCanvas: Benchmarking Web Agents in Online Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12373/) (2024)
- [A Survey of WebAgents: Towards Next-Generation AI Agents for Web Automation with Large Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23350/) (2025)
- [Agent-E: From Autonomous Web Navigation to Foundational Design Principles in Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13032/) (2024)
- [DeepShop: A Benchmark for Deep Research Shopping Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02839/) (2025)
- [ChatShop: Interactive Information Seeking with Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.09911/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [WALT: Web Agents that Learn Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.01524/) (2025)
- [EcomBench: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Foundation Agents in E-commerce](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08868/) (2025)
- [SCUBA: Salesforce Computer Use Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.26506/) (2025)
- [AgenticShop: Benchmarking Agentic Product Curation for Personalized Web Shopping](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.12315/) (2026)
- [MerchantBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Long-Term Coherence in E-Commerce Operations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28956/) (2026)
- [WebSP-Eval: Evaluating Web Agents on Website Security and Privacy Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06367/) (2026)
- [RiskWebWorld: A Realistic Interactive Benchmark for GUI Agents in E-commerce Risk Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13531/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Web agents have shown great promise in performing many tasks on ecommerce website. To assess their capabilities, several benchmarks have been introduced. However, current benchmarks in the e-commerce domain face two major problems. First, they primarily focus on product search tasks (e.g., Find an Apple Watch), failing to capture the broader range of functionalities offered by real-world e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, including account management and gift card operations. Second, existing benchmarks typically evaluate whether the agent completes the user query, but ignore the potential risks involved. In practice, web agents can make unintended changes that negatively impact the user account or status. For instance, an agent might purchase the wrong item, delete a saved address, or incorrectly configure an auto-reload setting. To address these gaps, we propose a new benchmark called Amazon-Bench. To generate user queries that cover a broad range of tasks, we propose a data generation pipeline that leverages webpage content and interactive elements (e.g., buttons, check boxes) to create diverse, functionality-grounded user queries covering tasks such as address management, wish list management, and brand store following. To improve the agent evaluation, we propose an automated evaluation framework that assesses both the performance and the safety of web agents. We systematically evaluate different agents, finding that current agents struggle with complex queries and pose safety risks. These results highlight the need for developing more robust and reliable web agents.