Independent reference. No vendor affiliation. Reprinted scores dated to their source; elsewhere we link the official board. Editorial policy.
Vol. III · Apr 2026
THE

Benchmarking Agents Review

An independent reference on AI evaluation
ISSN 2026-0428
Abstract
WhatMulti-category function-calling benchmark, roughly 2,000 test cases across Simple, Parallel, Multi-Turn, Live, Relevance Detection.
WhoGorilla team, UC Berkeley (Yan, Patil, Chen, et al.).
ScoresPer-model rankings live on the official leaderboard (linked); we do not reprint a score table.
Leaderboardgorilla.cs.berkeley.edu/leaderboard
Section II.viii Agent Benchmarks|Reviewed 2026

BFCL v3: The Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard, Explained

The benchmark every tool-using assistant team checks before shipping.

I

Construction

BFCL evaluates function-calling: given a user query and a candidate set of function definitions (name, description, parameters, return type), the model must emit a structured tool call. The Berkeley Gorilla team curates roughly 2,000 test cases spread across categories that escalate in difficulty.

v1 (Feb 2024) tested only Simple AST grading: one function in scope, exact-match on the emitted call. v2 (Aug 2024) added live function execution (the call actually runs against a real API), multi-step (the model must call several functions in sequence), and parallel (one turn, multiple calls). v3 (Dec 2024) added Relevance Detection (the model must refuse to call any tool when none is relevant) and Multi-Turn-Long (state tracking across long dialogues).

II

Per-Model Scores

We do not reprint a per-model BFCL score table. A responsible cross-model table would need each cell taken from the official Berkeley leaderboard under a disclosed harness, and that board is JavaScript-rendered and lags the current frontier generation, while vendor-reported function-calling numbers come from harnesses we cannot inspect. Any table we copied here would be stale or unverifiable. For live rankings use the official BFCL leaderboard, and start from the homepage task picker to find the benchmark that matches your use case.

III

Reading BFCL Scores

Always inspect the per-category breakdown, not just the overall. A model that scores 85% overall by acing Simple and tanking Multi-Turn is a different proposition for production than one that scores 80% by being merely competent across categories. The overall number averages over varying difficulty; the category-level table is where you find which failure mode dominates.

Tool-use benchmarks compared →Tau-Bench retail and airline →OpenAI Agents SDK on BFCL →
Reader Questions
Q.01What is BFCL?+
BFCL (Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard) is the standard benchmark for evaluating function-calling, the LLM capability where the model decides which tool to invoke and with what arguments. Maintained by the Gorilla team at UC Berkeley, v3 expanded the original v1 (simple AST-grading) into multi-step, parallel, and live categories.
Q.02What are the BFCL v3 categories?+
BFCL v3 evaluates across roughly seven categories: Simple (one function, AST match), Multiple (pick one from a candidate set), Parallel (call several functions in one turn), Parallel-Multiple (combine the previous two), Multi-Turn (track tool state across turns), Live (real APIs invoked, not just AST graded), and Relevance Detection (refuse if no tool is relevant). The headline number is the unweighted accuracy across all categories.
Q.03Why does function-calling need a dedicated benchmark?+
Function-calling failure modes do not show up in MMLU or HumanEval. A model can write correct Python but invent function signatures, hallucinate parameter names, fail to handle ambiguous user intent, or call a function when the user did not ask for a tool. BFCL surfaces these failure modes directly and is the only benchmark most function-calling teams trust as a regression signal.
Q.04Where can I find current per-model BFCL scores?+
On the official Berkeley leaderboard at gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu/leaderboard, which the Gorilla team re-runs as new models appear. We do not reprint a per-model BFCL score table here: the public board is JavaScript-rendered and lags the current frontier generation, and vendor-reported function-calling numbers are produced under harnesses we cannot inspect, so any table we copied would be stale or unverifiable. Read the live board, and when comparing models check the per-category breakdown rather than the single overall accuracy.
Q.05Is BFCL gameable?+
Partially. AST grading rewards exact match on function names and arguments, which means models trained on similar synthetic data (a common practice) score higher on Simple and Multiple categories than their underlying tool-use capability deserves. Live and Multi-Turn categories are more robust because they require correct tool execution and state tracking, not just lexical match.

Sources

  1. [1] BFCL leaderboard: gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu/leaderboard
  2. [2] BFCL blog and v3 announcement: gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu/blogs/13_bfcl_v3
  3. [3] Gorilla repository: github.com/ShishirPatil/gorilla
From the editor

Benchmarking Agents Review is published by Digital Signet, an independent firm that builds and ships AI agents in production for mid-market companies. If you are evaluating, designing, or productionising LLM agents and want a working second opinion, get in touch.

Book a 30-min scoping callDigital Signet →

30 minutes, free, independent.·1-page action plan within 48h.·Honest if not the right fit.