Papers for

api platform operators

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Tool retrieval method improves with query complexity and registry size

Plan or Retrieve First? A Scale Study of Tool Discovery Architectures

Abstract: Tool-augmented LLM agents discover relevant APIs from large registries before planning execution, yet finite context windows prohibit injecting all tool definitions into a single prompt. The dominant approach, which we term Retrieve-then-Plan (RtP), embeds the user query and retrieves similar tools via approximate nearest-neighbor search. We study an alternative Plan-then-Retrieve (PtR) paradigm in which the LLM first generates Abstract Tool Stubs (hypothesized function signatures describing needed capabilities) which then serve as retrieval queries against the registry. Evaluating on ToolBench (46,984 unique API endpoints, 50 categories) across single-tool (G1), intra-category multi-tool (G2), and cross-category multi-tool (G3) query subsets, we find a clear complexity-dependent crossover: RtP outperforms PtR on single-tool queries while PtR outperforms RtP on multi-tool queries. This crossover holds at every retrieval budget (k=1 to 20), is robust across registry sizes from 1k to 47k APIs, and is consistent across model families (Gemini 2.5 Flash and gpt-oss-120b). We characterize a stub-hallucination failure mode (the LLM invents plausible but non-existent API names) that acts as a double-edged sword: on simple queries PtR's stubs abstract away proper-noun signals that RtP matches directly, yet on complex queries the same mechanism decomposes multi-faceted intent into functional sub-needs. We further analyze token overhead and show that PtR's extra discovery call roughly doubles inference cost, which pays off on multi-tool queries but hurts on single-tool ones, motivating complexity-adaptive routing as a practical direction, one that can be driven by a zero-cost signal already present in the pipeline (RtP's top-1 retrieval score).

Tue 13 OctArtificial IntelligenceInformation Retrieval
The gist
Finding the right software tools from a huge collection is hard for AI helpers because they can't look at everything at once. The authors compare two ways of searching: one that finds tools first then plans how to use them, and another that plans what is needed before searching. They show that the first works better when only one tool is needed, but the second is better when multiple tools are involved. The second method is more expensive to run but helps break down complex needs into smaller parts.
Open → 2610.19068v1

Vault mediation protects API keys from exposure in AI agent systems

API Secrets Should Never Become Tokens in the LLM's Vocabulary: A Threat Analysis of API Credential Handling in LLM Agent Systems and an Empirical Evaluation of a Vault-Mediated Execution Boundary

Abstract: Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents turn credential hygiene from a storage problem into an execution-security problem. A key pasted into a prompt, or embedded in a system prompt or tool configuration, crosses from an authentication boundary into a data pipeline, where it may persist in conversation history, logs, memory stores, generated code, and error payloads. Prompt injection and excessive agency then convert passive disclosure into unauthorized action. This paper formalizes the credential-exposure threat chain for agentic systems; synthesizes evidence from a platform secret-store incident, vendor-reported secret-sprawl measurement, and OWASP and NIST guidance; and describes a vault-mediated execution architecture in which the model selects a connector identifier while a trusted request boundary supplies authentication. We evaluate a production implementation, Corvic Security Vault, in two controlled black-box experiments. Across 16 probes spanning seven control domains, every probe met its expected outcome: an authenticated GitHub API request succeeded while the credential stayed absent from process environment values, caller-visible request headers, tested filesystem locations, three third-party echo services, and two unrelated API origins; both cloud instance-metadata endpoints were unreachable. We also report a negative result, a connector whose stored header mapping did not satisfy its provider's authentication contract, showing that centralized custody does not by itself guarantee correct configuration. Vault mediation removes several disclosure paths but is necessary rather than sufficient: least privilege, deterministic action authorization, human approval, telemetry redaction, and rotation remain independently required. The study is purposive and small, a functional security evaluation rather than a certification.

Sun 27 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
When AI tools like large language models use secret keys to access services, those secrets can accidentally get shared or saved where they shouldn't be. The authors studied how these secret keys can leak and cause security problems in AI systems that use APIs. They tested a system that keeps the secrets safe by having the AI only pick which service to use, while a separate trusted part handles the secret key securely. Their tests showed the secrets stayed hidden and the requests still worked, but other security measures are still needed. This work helps improve how AI systems keep important secrets safe during operation.
Open → 2609.33371v1

Platform learns to find lowest cost reliable language model providers

Learning the Cost of Reliable Inference

Abstract: Benchmarking and routing platforms increasingly act as intermediaries connecting large language model providers with end-users. However, providers on these platforms typically use a fixed price per token, preventing users from achieving the most competitive price for their tasks. % workloads. In this work, we design a procurement platform where token prices for each task are driven by provider competition, enabling users to secure competitive pricing for guaranteed quality levels. To this end, the platform sequentially routes queries via a reverse second-price auction that incentivizes model providers to truthfully bid their best estimate of the average cost to serve a user's query. As it routes queries, the platform learns the quality offered by each provider and progressively routes queries to the most cost-competitive provider among those meeting a desired quality threshold. To validate our design, we conduct experiments with multiple LLMs from the \texttt{Llama} and \texttt{Qwen} families on popular mathematical reasoning and question-answering benchmarks. The results show that the pricing margin of the most cost-competitive provider on our platform varies significantly---from $10\%$ to $71\%$---depending on the task and quality threshold. This suggests a substantial inefficiency in the current fixed-price market, and it demonstrates that our platform may enable users to capture maximum savings whenever competitive market conditions permit.

Wed 23 SeptArtificial IntelligenceComputer Science and Game TheoryMachine Learning
The gist
Many large language model services charge the same fixed price for each word they generate, which might not be the best deal for every task. The authors created a system that lets different language model providers bid for each user query, encouraging them to offer true prices based on their real costs. Over time, the system learns which providers deliver good quality at the best prices and routes user requests accordingly. They tested this idea using popular language models on math and question-answering tasks and found a big difference in prices, showing current fixed pricing can be very inefficient.
Open → 2609.28322v1