# BankerToolBench: Evaluating AI Agents in End-to-End Investment Banking Workflows

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11304 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11304/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 15 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

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

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01643/) (2020)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04374/) (2025)
- [MultiHiertt: Numerical Reasoning over Multi Hierarchical Tabular and Textual Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01347/) (2022)
- [Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00828/) (2025)
- [PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11562/) (2025)
- [Autorubric: A Unifying Framework for Rubric-Based LLM Evaluation on Non-Verifiable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00077/) (2026)
- [ProfBench: Multi-Domain Rubrics requiring Professional Knowledge to Answer and Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18941/) (2025)
- [An Imperfect Verifier is Good Enough: Learning with Noisy Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07666/) (2026)
- [RepoMod-Bench: A Benchmark for Code Repository Modernization via Implementation-Agnostic Testing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.22518/) (2026)
- [Re-Evaluating EVMBench: Are AI Agents Ready for Smart Contract Security?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10795/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19337/) (2026)
- [A Cheap Verifier is Good Enough: LLM Post-training is Robust to Erroneous Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33467/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing AI benchmarks lack the fidelity to assess economically meaningful progress on professional workflows. To evaluate frontier AI agents in a high-value, labor-intensive profession, we introduce BankerToolBench (BTB): an open-source benchmark of end-to-end analytical workflows routinely performed by junior investment bankers. To develop an ecologically valid benchmark grounded in representative work environments, we collaborated with 502 investment bankers from leading firms. BTB requires agents to execute senior banker requests by navigating data rooms, using industry tools (market data platform, SEC filings database), and generating multi-file deliverables--including Excel financial models, PowerPoint pitch decks, and PDF/Word reports. Completing a BTB task takes bankers up to 21 hours, underscoring the economic stakes of successfully delegating this work to AI. BTB enables automated evaluation of any LLM or agent, scoring deliverables against 100+ rubric criteria defined by veteran investment bankers to capture stakeholder utility. Testing 9 frontier models, we find that even the best-performing model (GPT-5.4) fails nearly half of the rubric criteria and bankers rate 0% of its outputs as client-ready. Our failure analysis reveals key obstacles (such as breakdowns in cross-artifact consistency) and improvement directions for agentic AI in high-stakes professional workflows.