Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Beyond Max Tokens: Stealthy Resource Amplification via Tool Calling Chains in LLM Agents

Kaiyu Zhou, Yongsen Zheng, Yicheng He, Meng Xue, Xueluan Gong, Yuji Wang, Xuanye Zhang, Kwok-Yan Lam · Jan 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Stale

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 11, 2026, 7:01 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Mar 11, 2026, 7:01 AM

Stale

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence unavailable

Abstract

The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents. Existing denial-of-service (DoS) attacks typically function at the user-prompt or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) context layer and are inherently single-turn in nature. This limitation restricts cost amplification and diminishes stealth in goal-oriented workflows. To address these issues, we proposed a stealthy, multi-turn economic DoS attack at the tool layer under the Model Context Protocol (MCP). By simply editing text-visible fields and implementing a template-driven return policy, our malicious server preserves function signatures and the terminal benign payload while steering agents into prolonged, verbose tool-calling chains. We optimize these text-only edits with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to maximize cost under a task-success constraint. Across six LLMs on ToolBench and BFCL benchmarks, our attack yields trajectories over 60K tokens, increases per-query cost by up to 658 times, raises energy by 100 to 560 times, and pushes GPU key-value (KV) cache occupancy to 35--74%. Standard prompt filters and output trajectory monitors seldom detect these attacks, highlighting the need for defenses that safeguard agentic processes rather than focusing solely on final outcomes. We will release the code soon.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Human Data Lens

Structured extraction is still processing. Below are provisional signals inferred from abstract text only.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are currently inferred heuristically from abstract text.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Generated Mar 11, 2026, 7:01 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • The agent--tool interaction loop is a critical attack surface for modern Large Language Model (LLM) agents.
  • Existing denial-of-service (DoS) attacks typically function at the user-prompt or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) context layer and are inherently single-turn in nature.
  • This limitation restricts cost amplification and diminishes stealth in goal-oriented workflows.

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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.