Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

Day 4 - LLM - Tool Calling

Tool Calling Asking some query to the LLM. LLM is like a phone book , it can't call on its own. With some tools only it will. Tools are nothing but FUNCTIONS. Tool calling is also called as FUNCTION Calling. Its a method , which models reliably connect and interact with external tools like API , database or knowledge base. LLM gets set of tools and it decides which tools needs to be invoked for a…

Day 4 of the LLM (large language model) development focuses on tool calling, a method that allows models to reliably interact with external tools such as APIs, databases, or knowledge bases. Tools are essentially functions that the model can invoke to complete a specific user query or task.

Tool calling is also referred to as function calling. The model receives a set of tools and determines which ones are necessary for a given query. This represents a significant advancement in LLM capabilities, often built upon a more foundational approach known as Multi-Modal Conversations (MCP).

In the Langchain framework, a tool is akin to a method decorated with a special annotation, denoted by the @tool decorator. This decorator signifies that the method can be called by the LLM. A tool_map is a dictionary that maps tools to their respective functions.

Langchain integrates with Groq, a platform that provides access to various large language models, such as llama3 or gpt-oss120 billion. To utilize these models, an API key must be created. The Groq client, a software component, facilitates communication between the Langchain LLM and these cloud-based language models.

Implementing tool calling offers several advantages, including real-time data access, reduced hallucinations (instances where the model generates incorrect or nonsensical information), and an expansion of the LLM's functionality. However, there are also drawbacks to consider, such as increased token consumption and costs, potential security vulnerabilities, and risks related to model safety.

Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at dev.to →

More in AI

AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

Abstract: AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple…

  • AI agents gaining autonomy raises concerns about replacing human oversight entirely
  • Current AI designs hinder effective human oversight, eroding required skills
  • Proposed design-level features and protocols support overseers' goals and cognitive needs

AI Safety Is a Zero Trust Problem, Not a Philosophy Debate

The reaction to Jacob Coxon leaving Anthropic centers on existential risk. That debate matters. But existential risk is not an infrastructure strategy.

  • AI systems expose limitations of static IAM roles and traditional network perimeters.
  • Zero Trust principles must be applied directly to AI runtime.
  • Infrastructure security addresses AI safety, not just model alignment.

I’m building **Cerbère-AG**, a security evidence layer for AI agents.

I’m building Cerbère-AG , a security evidence layer for AI agents. Most AI security tools focus on what goes into the model: prompt injection, malicious inputs, jailbreaks, etc.

  • Cerbère-AG is a security evidence layer for AI agents.
  • Focuses on actions AI models take, not just inputs.
  • Seeking feedback from developers running AI agents.

Agent memory that tells you when it couldn't check

An on-call agent that answers "no prior incidents" might be telling you the archive is empty. It might also be telling you the embedding call timed out, and most memory stores return both as the same…

  • Throughline agent has memory layer for audit
  • Primary memory db-7 with 14-day half-life
  • UNKNOWN verdict reported when search fails

More from Saturday 26 September →