OO-Spec is fastest among all evaluated methods in all 21 target-benchmark cells, and outperforms every evaluated released learned drafter in each comparable cell, while the same sidecar improves on ToolSpec by 34.1% on average.
Abstract
LLMs generate tool calls token by token, even though the function choice and argument values can often be predicted in parallel from the request and tool schema. ToolSpec reduces this cost by drafting schema tokens and retrieving earlier calls, but cannot propose request-specific values absent from either source. We present OoO-Spec, which computes these missing semantics out of order. At request arrival, a Qwen3-0.6B sidecar predicts the function choice and all schema-defined argument slots in one parallel request-level wave while the target begins ToolSpec decoding. The runtime joins the slot values, renders the resulting call as text, and exposes it to subsequent candidate-construction rounds. The target polls without blocking, re-tokenizes a ready hint with its own tokenizer, and remains the sole verifier and commit authority. The sidecar is trained once with LoRA on Qwen2.5-32B teacher traces and used unchanged across Qwen2.5, Qwen3, and Llama targets, without target-specific drafter training. Across seven fully ranked targets and three benchmarks under greedy batch-one decoding, OoO-Spec is fastest among all evaluated methods in all 21 target-benchmark cells, reaching 2.46x-5.34x over autoregressive decoding with an unweighted mean of 3.89x, versus 2.95x for ToolSpec. It also outperforms every evaluated released learned drafter in each comparable cell. Across Qwen3-4B, 8B, 14B, and 32B targets, the same sidecar improves on ToolSpec by 34.1% on average. Its compact semantic payload averages 85 bytes per request excluding protocol metadata, supporting effective split-GPU overlap.
Per-server prompt engineering is therefore a workaround rather than a fix; it is argued that MCP host applications should provide an explicit mechanism that places server instructions ahead of tool selection in the client LLM's deliberation.
Minhan Cho, Soyoung Park, Kihyeon Jeong et al.· 0 citations
This work empirically compare programmatic tool calling to native JSON tool calling across 14 language models on BFCL v4 and demonstrates that programmatic tool calling is a viable and robust alternative to JSON tool calling, with performance tracking model capability across release generations.
Ishan Patel, Sahil Sen, Elias Lumer et al.· 1 citation
Function calling enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to orchestrate backend services by invoking structured tools, extending their role from text generators to intelligent agents. While prior work evaluates tool-use accuracy, there is limited empirical evidence on the backend-level performance trade-offs between LLM-d...
M. A. Ala’anzy, Adil Akhmetov, Amani Ibraheem et al.· 2026 6th International Confe...· 0 citations
OrderBench is introduced, a deterministic benchmark for restaurant ordering agents that separates syntactic validity, schema validity, status decisions, exact item semantics, constraint preservation, and unsafe acceptances.
A second, semantic draft source is proposed: the same pool, re-keyed by the hidden state the verifier has already computed at each committed token, together with a merge that lets it ride inside an existing lexical drafter's tree.
Tao Jin, P. Nguyen, Zhenzhu Yan et al.· 0 citations
ContainmentBench, a sandboxed benchmark comprising a 504-scenario specification dataset, a shared rollout-trace schema, and stage-scoped metrics for endpoint violations, logged propagation, and explicitly authorized taint-exposed proposals that commit, is introduced.
Wen-Hao Lan, Shan Li, Meiqi Wu et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.