Overview
The benchmark is practical and the experiments clearly show specific failure modes; results are limited to GPT-3.5 and Llama2 and to the created function set.
Citations1
Evidence Strength0.60
Confidence0.80
Risk Signals9
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 5/5
Findings with evidence refs: 5/5
Results with explicit delta: 1/7
Reproducibility
Status: Code + data available
Open source: Partial
At A Glance
Cost impact: 35%
Production readiness: 40%
Novelty: 60%
Why It Matters For Business
Tool-augmented LLMs can detect when to call external multimodal tools but often select the wrong tool or give bad arguments; validate tool selection and add argument checks before shipping to avoid broken user-facing features.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
This paper builds MultiAPI, a human-refined benchmark of 235 executable multimodal API functions and 2,038 instructions, and tests GPT-3.5 and Llama2 on tool-augmented multimodal tasks. Models almost always decide to call a tool (≈99.8% invoke accuracy for GPT-3.5) but often pick the wrong domain/function and fail to produce correct arguments (function accuracy ≈53%, argument exact-match ≈43% for GPT-3.5). Adding explicit domain descriptions and a secondary argument editor meaningfully improves domain, function, and argument scores.
Problem Statement
LLMs are strong on text but real-world problems need multimodal tools. There is no large, executable API benchmark to test whether LLMs can pick the right multimodal tool and produce correct arguments. Without such tests we can't reliably integrate LLMs with vision/audio tools in products.
Main Contribution
Released MultiAPI: 235 executable API functions and 2,038 human-refined prompts for multimodal tool evaluation.
Defined a 4-step evaluation (invoke / domain / function / argument) that treats tool use as a text-matching task.
Key Findings
LLMs reliably detect when to call an API.
Picking the correct domain and specific function is error-prone.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | GPT-3.5 99.82% | — | — | MultiAPI (Table 2) | High invoke accuracy shows models detect need for tools | Table 2 |
| Accuracy | GPT-3.5 71.78% | — | — | MultiAPI (Table 2) | Models confused among image analysis domains | Table 2; Figure 2 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Run MultiAPI or a small subset against your system to measure invoke/domain/function/argument failures
Add concise domain descriptions to the system prompt to reduce domain confusion
Insert a lightweight argument editor (secondary LLM or rules) to validate and correct args before calls, starting with file-path checks and prompt normalization for generators
Agent Features
Tool Use
Reproducibility
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Context window forces dataset splits; only ~25 functions per split were tested.
Experiments use GPT-3.5 and Llama2 only; results may differ for other models.
When Not To Use
Do not assume function-call accuracy implies correct downstream outputs; validate end-to-end results.
Avoid using benchmark results as final QA for safety-sensitive systems without human checks.
Failure Modes
Confusing image classification, segmentation, and detection domains leading to wrong function calls.
Incorrect or malformed exact-match arguments (file paths) causing failed executions.