Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Try, Check and Retry: A Divide-and-Conquer Framework for Boosting Long-context Tool-Calling Performance of LLMs

Kunfeng Chen, Qihuang Zhong, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Dacheng Tao · Mar 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments. However, current methods often struggle to handle massive and noisy candidate tools in long-context tool-calling tasks, limiting their real-world application. To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs. The core of Tool-DC is to reduce the reasoning difficulty and make full use of self-reflection ability of LLMs via a "Try-Check-Retry" paradigm. Specifically, Tool-DC involves two variants: 1) the training-free Tool-DC (TF), which is plug-and-play and flexible; 2) the training-based Tool-DC (TB), which is more inference-efficient. Extensive experiments show that both Tool-DC methods outperform their counterparts by a clear margin. Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and Claude-Haiku-4.5.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

BFCL, Acebench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and Claude-Haiku-4.5."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

BFCLAcebench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments.
  • However, current methods often struggle to handle massive and noisy candidate tools in long-context tool-calling tasks, limiting their real-world application.
  • To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs.
  • Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: BFCL, Acebench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.