# Getting the Parameters Right: A Difficulty-Graded Benchmark and Probe-Guided Training for LLM Tool Calls

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03071 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03071/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 19 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06824/) (2023)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15927/) (2024)
- [LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02707/) (2024)
- [MetaTool Benchmark for Large Language Models: Deciding Whether to Use Tools and Which to Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03128/) (2023)
- [ToolACE: Winning the Points of LLM Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00920/) (2024)
- [APIGen: Automated Pipeline for Generating Verifiable and Diverse Function-Calling Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18518/) (2024)
- [An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04511/) (2023)
- [APIGen-MT: Agentic Pipeline for Multi-Turn Data Generation via Simulated Agent-Human Interplay](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03601/) (2025)
- [Revisiting Self-Training for Neural Sequence Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.13788/) (2019)
- [HaloScope: Harnessing Unlabeled LLM Generations for Hallucination Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.17504/) (2024)
- [Seal-Tools: Self-Instruct Tool Learning Dataset for Agent Tuning and Detailed Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.08355/) (2024)
- [On Early Detection of Hallucinations in Factual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14183/) (2023)
- [Re-Invoke: Tool Invocation Rewriting for Zero-Shot Tool Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.01875/) (2024)
- [Internal Representations as Indicators of Hallucinations in Agent Tool Selection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05214/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model agents derive much of their capability from tool use. Existing research on tool use has largely focused on selecting the right tool and orchestrating the order of calls. However, correctly filling the parameters of a tool call is equally critical for successful execution and has received far less attention. In domains such as cloud networking, even frontier models correctly complete fewer than half of tool calls. Inspired by recent analyses showing that LLM hidden states encode rich information about model predictions, we discover that while the model generates a parameter value, its hidden state contains a strong correctness signal: a simple linear probe can accurately predict whether the value will be correct. Based on this observation, we propose a unified probe-guided framework with two complementary approaches: probe-filtered bootstrapped training (PBT), which uses the probe to filter reliable self-generated calls for fine-tuning, and probe-guided reranking (PGR), which uses the probe to select better candidates during inference. To support systematic evaluation, we release ParamBench, a benchmark built from real cloud-network APIs that categorizes every instance into five difficulty levels according to parameter nesting depth, cross-parameter dependencies, and the reasoning required to derive values from earlier calls. Extensive experiments across 5 open models on ParamBench and 6 external benchmarks demonstrate that our method substantially improves parameter generation, raising the average exact match from 19.7% to 59.6%.