CryptoAnalystBench: Failures in Multi-Tool Long-Form LLM Analysis
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern analyst agents must reason over complex, high token inputs, including dozens of retrieved documents, tool outputs, and time sensitive data. While prior work has produced tool calling benchmarks and examined factuality in knowledge augmented systems, relatively little work studies their intersection: settings where LLMs must integrate large volumes of dynamic, structured and unstructured multi tool outputs. We investigate LLM failure modes in this regime using crypto as a representative high data density domain. We introduce (1) CryptoAnalystBench, an analyst aligned benchmark of 198 production crypto and DeFi queries spanning 11 categories; (2) an agentic harness equipped with relevant crypto and DeFi tools to generate responses across multiple frontier LLMs; and (3) an evaluation pipeline with citation verification and an LLM as a judge rubric spanning four user defined success dimensions: relevance, temporal relevance, depth, and data consistency. Using human annotation, we develop a taxonomy of seven higher order error types that are not reliably captured by factuality checks or LLM based quality scoring. We find that these failures persist even in state of the art systems and can compromise high stakes decisions. Based on this taxonomy, we refine the judge rubric to better capture these errors. While the judge does not align with human annotators on precise scoring across rubric iterations, it reliably identifies critical failure modes, enabling scalable feedback for developers and researchers studying analyst style agents. We release CryptoAnalystBench with annotated queries, the evaluation pipeline, judge rubrics, and the error taxonomy, and outline mitigation strategies and open challenges in evaluating long form, multi tool augmented systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 32 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2026.
Builds on
32 of 49 references.
References · 32
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 865
- 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 616
- 2023Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citationscited by 584
- 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMscited by 574
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 558
- 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 484
20 more
- 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 451
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 354
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 351
- 2023Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Enginescited by 297
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 249
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 248
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 145
- 2023RestGPT: Connecting Large Language Models with Real-World RESTful APIscited by 129
- 2023ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answerscited by 96
- 2025Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Taskscited by 63
- 2024INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agentcited by 62
- 2023HAGRID: A Human-LLM Collaborative Dataset for Generative Information-Seeking with Attributioncited by 55
- 2024WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipediacited by 43
- 2025Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 42
- 2025DRAGged into Conflicts: Detecting and Addressing Conflicting Sources in Search-Augmented LLMscited by 21
- 2024How well do LLMs cite relevant medical references? An evaluation framework and analysescited by 20
- 2025CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attributioncited by 19
- 2025When Hallucination Costs Millions: Benchmarking AI Agents in High-Stakes Adversarial Financial Marketscited by 5
- 2025CryptoBench: A Dynamic Benchmark for Expert-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents in Cryptocurrencycited by 5
- 2025DMind Benchmark: Toward a Holistic Assessment of LLM Capabilities across the Web3 Domaincited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Long-Horizon State Tracking in LLMs: Executing MD5 through a Deep Sequence of Dependent Tool Calls
- 2025Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cryptanalysis and Side-Channel Vulnerabilities
- 2025Human-Centered LLM-Agent System for Detecting Anomalous Digital Asset Transactions
- 2026Measuring and Exploiting Implicit Trust in LLM Tool-Calling Pipelines
- 2026Capability Gates Are Not Authorization: Confused-Deputy Failures in LLM Agent Frameworks
- 2025LLMs as verification oracles for Solidity
- 2026The Granularity Mismatch in Agent Security: Argument-Level Provenance Solves Enforcement and Isolates the LLM Reasoning Bottleneck
- 2026ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents