mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Less Context, Better Agents: Efficient Context Engineering for Long-Horizon Tool-Using LLM Agents

arXiv 2606.10209 ↗First posted 8 Jun 2026cs.AI cs.LG cs.SEcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models deployed as autonomous agents for enterprise workflows face a key challenge: verbose tool responses from enterprise systems can cause context overflow, stale-state errors, and high inference cost. We study this problem in automated expense itemization in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations using Model Context Protocol tools. We evaluate four GPT-5 configurations on a 50-task hotel expense benchmark: no user model, full conversation history, context pruned to the last 5 tool call/response pairs, and pruning with automated summarization. Results are averaged across 5 independent runs, with the user model held constant for the context-engineering comparison. The no-user-model baseline achieves only 8.0% complete itemization. Full-context retention improves completion to 71.0%, but consumes 1,480,996 tokens and 14.56 hours per benchmark. Pruning to the last 5 tool calls improves completion to 79.0% while reducing token use to 535,274 and runtime to 5.39 hours. Adding summarization achieves the best result: 91.6% complete itemization and 99.64% average amount itemized, with 553,374 tokens and 5.79 hours. We further report confidence intervals, effect-size analysis, sensitivity over pruning and summary windows, failure analysis, results across five expense types grouped into three categories, and cross-model evidence with Claude Sonnet 4.5. These results show that, for this class of enterprise tool-use workflow, selective retention of recent tool interactions plus compact summarization can improve both reliability and efficiency compared with full-history retention.

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 8 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

Builds on

8 of 11 references.

References · 8

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2024Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agentscited by 830
  4. 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 707
  5. 2023LLMLingua: Compressing Prompts for Accelerated Inference of Large Language Modelscited by 287
  6. 2025ACON: Optimizing Context Compression for Long-horizon LLM Agentscited by 136
  7. 2025MCP-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using LLM Agents with Complex Real-World Tasks via MCP Serverscited by 109
  8. 2025Context as a Tool: Context Management for Long-Horizon SWE-Agentscited by 43

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026FinMCP-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Real-World Financial Tool Use under the Model Context Protocol
  2. 2026FinToolBench: Evaluating LLM Agents for Real-World Financial Tool Use
  3. 2026FORCE-Bench: A Benchmark, Dataset, and Evaluation Harness for Agentic AI in Enterprise Finance
  4. 2026OmegaUse-OfficeVal: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Long-Horizon Office-Suite Tasks with Economic Grounding
  5. 2026FinTrace: Holistic Trajectory-Level Evaluation of LLM Tool Calling for Long-Horizon Financial Tasks
  6. 2026BlueFin: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Financial Spreadsheets
  7. 2026Token Optimization and Context Window Management in Multi-Agent AI Workflows
  8. 2026ContextPipe: Database-Inspired Context Assembly for Long-Horizon Agents