# CryptoAnalystBench: Failures in Multi-Tool Long-Form LLM Analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11304 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11304/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09848/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21504/) (2025)
- [RestGPT: Connecting Large Language Models with Real-World RESTful APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06624/) (2023)
- [ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07852/) (2023)
- [Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00828/) (2025)
- [INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18174/) (2024)
- [HAGRID: A Human-LLM Collaborative Dataset for Generative Information-Seeking with Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16883/) (2023)
- [WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13805/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22316/) (2025)
- [DRAGged into Conflicts: Detecting and Addressing Conflicting Sources in Search-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08500/) (2025)
- [How well do LLMs cite relevant medical references? An evaluation framework and analyses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02008/) (2024)
- [CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01829/) (2025)
- [When Hallucination Costs Millions: Benchmarking AI Agents in High-Stakes Adversarial Financial Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00332/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [LATTICE: Evaluating Decision Support Utility of Crypto Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.26235/) (2026)

## 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.