mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Operating-Layer Controls for Onchain Language-Model Agents Under Real Capital

arXiv 2604.26091 ↗First posted 28 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.CE cs.MAcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents

Abstract (arXiv)

We study reliability in autonomous language-model agents that translate user mandates into validated tool actions under real capital. The setting is DX Terminal Pro, a 21-day deployment in which 3,505 user-funded agents traded real ETH in a bounded onchain market. Users configured vaults through structured controls and natural-language strategies, but only agents could choose normal buy/sell trades. The system produced 7.5M agent invocations, roughly 300K onchain actions, about 20M in volume, more than 5,000 ETH deployed, roughly 70B inference tokens, and 99.9% settlement success for policy-valid submitted transactions. Long-running agents accumulated thousands of sequential decisions, including 6,000+ prompt-state-action cycles for continuously active agents, yielding a large-scale trace from user mandate to rendered prompt, reasoning, validation, portfolio state, and settlement. Reliability did not come from the base model alone; it emerged from the operating layer around the model: prompt compilation, typed controls, policy validation, execution guards, memory design, and trace-level observability. Pre-launch testing exposed failures that text-only benchmarks rarely measure, including fabricated trading rules, fee paralysis, numeric anchoring, cadence trading, and misread tokenomics. Targeted harness changes reduced fabricated sell rules from 57% to 3%, reduced fee-led observations from 32.5% to below 10%, and increased capital deployment from 42.9% to 78.0% in an affected test population. We show that capital-managing agents should be evaluated across the full path from user mandate to prompt, validated action, and settlement.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

Builds on

8 of 31 references.

References · 8

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  3. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  4. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  5. 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,122
  6. 2024The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systemscited by 275
  7. 2025AgentSociety: Large-Scale Simulation of LLM-Driven Generative Agents Advances Understanding of Human Behaviors and Societycited by 180
  8. 2023Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Taskscited by 94

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ChainClaw: A Layered Agent Framework for Reliable On-Chain Execution
  2. 2026Autonomous Agents on Blockchains: Standards, Execution Models, and Trust Boundaries
  3. 2026Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets
  4. 2026Can Agentic Trading Systems Pay for Their Own Intelligence?
  5. 2026Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems
  6. 2026FinVault: Benchmarking Financial Agent Safety in Execution-Grounded Environments
  7. 2025When Agents Trade: Live Multi-Market Trading Benchmark for LLM Agents
  8. 2026SoK: Trading Agents or Market Crashers? Dissecting Robustness and Security Failures in Academic Financial LLM Trading Schemes