TaskWeaver vs ToolLLM
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | TaskWeaver | ToolLLM |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Agent | Agent |
| UnfragileRank | 42/100 | 42/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Converts natural language user requests into executable Python code plans by routing through a Planner role that decomposes tasks into sub-steps, then coordinates CodeInterpreter and External Roles to generate and execute code. The Planner maintains a YAML-based prompt configuration that guides task decomposition logic, ensuring structured workflow orchestration rather than free-form text generation. Unlike traditional chat-based agents, TaskWeaver preserves both chat history AND code execution history (including in-memory DataFrames and variables) across stateful sessions.
Unique: Preserves code execution history and in-memory data structures (DataFrames, variables) across multi-turn conversations, enabling true stateful planning where subsequent task decompositions can reference previous results. Most agent frameworks only track text chat history, losing the computational context.
vs alternatives: Outperforms LangChain/LlamaIndex for data analytics workflows because it treats code as the primary communication medium rather than text, enabling direct manipulation of rich data structures without serialization overhead.
The CodeInterpreter role generates Python code based on Planner instructions, then executes it in an isolated sandbox environment with access to a plugin registry. Code generation is guided by available plugins (exposed as callable functions with YAML-defined signatures), and execution results (including variable state and DataFrames) are captured and returned to the Planner. The framework uses a Code Execution Service that manages Python runtime isolation, preventing code injection and enabling safe multi-tenant execution.
Unique: Integrates code generation with a plugin registry system where plugins are exposed as callable Python functions with YAML-defined schemas, enabling the LLM to generate code that calls plugins with proper type signatures. The execution sandbox captures full runtime state (variables, DataFrames) for stateful multi-step workflows.
vs alternatives: More robust than Copilot or Cursor for data analytics because it executes generated code in a controlled environment and captures results automatically, rather than requiring manual execution and copy-paste of outputs.
Supports External Roles (e.g., WebExplorer, ImageReader) that extend TaskWeaver with specialized capabilities beyond code execution. External Roles are implemented as separate modules that communicate with the Planner through the standard message-passing interface, enabling them to be developed and deployed independently. The framework provides a role interface that External Roles must implement, ensuring compatibility with the orchestration system. External Roles can wrap external APIs (web search, image processing services) or custom algorithms, exposing them as callable functions to the CodeInterpreter.
Unique: Enables External Roles (WebExplorer, ImageReader, etc.) to be developed and deployed independently while communicating through the standard Planner interface. This allows specialized capabilities to be added without modifying core framework code.
vs alternatives: More modular than monolithic agent frameworks because External Roles are loosely coupled and can be developed/deployed independently, enabling teams to build specialized capabilities in parallel.
Enables agent behavior customization through YAML configuration files rather than code changes. Configuration files define LLM provider settings, role prompts, plugin registry, execution parameters (timeouts, memory limits), and UI settings. The framework loads configuration at startup and applies it to all components, enabling users to customize agent behavior without modifying Python code. Configuration validation ensures that invalid settings are caught early, preventing runtime errors. Supports environment variable substitution in configuration files for sensitive data (API keys).
Unique: Uses YAML-based configuration files to customize agent behavior (LLM provider, role prompts, plugins, execution parameters) without code changes, enabling easy deployment across environments and experimentation with different settings.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded agent configurations because all major settings are externalized to YAML, enabling non-developers to customize agent behavior and supporting easy environment-specific deployments.
Provides evaluation and testing capabilities for assessing agent performance on data analytics tasks. The framework includes benchmarks for common analytics workflows and metrics for evaluating task completion, code quality, and execution efficiency. Evaluation can be run against different LLM providers and configurations to compare performance. The testing framework enables developers to write test cases that verify agent behavior on specific tasks, ensuring regressions are caught before deployment. Evaluation results are logged and can be compared across runs to track improvements.
Unique: Provides a built-in evaluation framework for assessing agent performance on data analytics tasks, including benchmarks and metrics for comparing different LLM providers and configurations.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than ad-hoc testing because it provides standardized benchmarks and metrics for evaluating agent quality, enabling systematic comparison across configurations and tracking improvements over time.
Maintains session state across multiple user interactions by preserving both chat history and code execution history, including in-memory Python objects (DataFrames, variables, function definitions). The Session component manages conversation context, tracks execution artifacts, and enables rollback or reference to previous states. Unlike stateless chat interfaces, TaskWeaver's session model treats the Python runtime as a first-class citizen, allowing subsequent tasks to reference variables or DataFrames created in earlier steps.
Unique: Preserves Python runtime state (variables, DataFrames, function definitions) across multi-turn conversations, not just text chat history. This enables true stateful analytics workflows where a user can reference 'the DataFrame from step 2' without re-running previous code.
vs alternatives: Fundamentally different from stateless LLM chat interfaces (ChatGPT, Claude) because it maintains computational state, enabling iterative data exploration where each step builds on previous results without context loss.
Extends TaskWeaver functionality through a plugin architecture where custom algorithms and tools are wrapped as callable Python functions with YAML-based schema definitions. Plugins define input/output types, parameter constraints, and documentation that the CodeInterpreter uses to generate type-safe function calls. The plugin registry is loaded at startup and exposed to the LLM, enabling code generation that respects function signatures and prevents runtime type errors. Plugins can be domain-specific (e.g., WebExplorer, ImageReader) or custom user-defined functions.
Unique: Uses YAML-based schema definitions for plugins, enabling the LLM to understand function signatures, parameter types, and constraints without inspecting Python code. This allows code generation to be type-aware and prevents runtime errors from type mismatches.
vs alternatives: More structured than LangChain's tool calling because plugins have explicit YAML schemas that the LLM can reason about, rather than relying on docstring parsing or JSON schema inference which is error-prone.
Implements a role-based multi-agent architecture where different agents (Planner, CodeInterpreter, External Roles like WebExplorer, ImageReader) specialize in specific tasks and communicate exclusively through the Planner. The Planner acts as a central hub, routing messages between roles and ensuring coordinated execution. Each role has a specific prompt configuration (defined in YAML) that guides its behavior, and roles communicate through a message-passing system rather than direct function calls. This design enables loose coupling and allows roles to be swapped or extended without modifying the core framework.
Unique: Enforces all inter-role communication through a central Planner rather than allowing direct role-to-role communication. This ensures coordinated execution and prevents agents from operating at cross-purposes, but requires careful Planner prompt engineering to avoid bottlenecks.
vs alternatives: More structured than LangChain's agent composition because roles have explicit responsibilities and communication patterns, reducing the likelihood of agents duplicating work or generating conflicting outputs.
+5 more capabilities
Automatically collects and curates 16,464 real-world REST APIs from RapidAPI with metadata extraction, categorization, and schema parsing. The system ingests API specifications, endpoint definitions, parameter schemas, and response formats into a structured database that serves as the foundation for instruction generation and model training. This enables models to learn from genuine production APIs rather than synthetic examples.
Unique: Leverages RapidAPI's 16K+ real-world API catalog with automated schema extraction and categorization, creating the largest production-grade API dataset for LLM training rather than relying on synthetic or limited API examples
vs alternatives: Provides 10-100x more diverse real-world APIs than competitors who typically use 100-500 synthetic or hand-curated examples, enabling models to generalize across genuine production constraints
Generates high-quality instruction-answer pairs with explicit reasoning traces using a Depth-First Search Decision Tree algorithm that explores tool-use sequences systematically. For each instruction, the system constructs a decision tree where each node represents a tool selection decision, edges represent API calls, and leaf nodes represent task completion. The algorithm generates complete reasoning traces showing thought process, tool selection rationale, parameter construction, and error recovery patterns, creating supervision signals for training models to reason about tool use.
Unique: Uses Depth-First Search Decision Tree algorithm to systematically explore and annotate tool-use sequences with explicit reasoning traces, creating supervision signals that teach models to reason about tool selection rather than memorizing patterns
vs alternatives: Generates reasoning-annotated data that enables models to explain tool-use decisions, whereas most competitors use simple input-output pairs without reasoning traces, resulting in 15-25% higher performance on complex multi-tool tasks
TaskWeaver scores higher at 42/100 vs ToolLLM at 42/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Maintains a public leaderboard that tracks model performance across multiple evaluation metrics (pass rate, win rate, efficiency) with normalization to enable fair comparison across different evaluation sets and baselines. The leaderboard ingests evaluation results from the ToolEval framework, normalizes scores to a 0-100 scale, and ranks models by composite score. Results are stratified by evaluation set (default, extended) and complexity tier (G1/G2/G3), enabling users to understand model strengths and weaknesses across different task types. Historical results are preserved, enabling tracking of progress over time.
Unique: Provides normalized leaderboard that enables fair comparison across evaluation sets and baselines with stratification by complexity tier, rather than single-metric rankings that obscure model strengths/weaknesses
vs alternatives: Stratified leaderboard reveals that models may excel at single-tool tasks but struggle with cross-domain orchestration, whereas flat rankings hide these differences; normalization enables fair comparison across different evaluation methodologies
A specialized neural model trained on ToolBench data to rank APIs by relevance for a given user query. The Tool Retriever learns semantic relationships between queries and APIs, enabling it to identify relevant tools even when query language doesn't directly match API names or descriptions. The model is trained using contrastive learning where relevant APIs are pulled closer to queries in embedding space while irrelevant APIs are pushed away. At inference time, the retriever ranks candidate APIs by relevance score, enabling the main inference pipeline to select appropriate tools from large API catalogs without explicit enumeration.
Unique: Trains a specialized retriever model using contrastive learning on ToolBench data to learn semantic query-API relationships, enabling ranking that captures domain knowledge rather than simple keyword matching
vs alternatives: Learned retriever achieves 20-30% higher top-K recall than BM25 keyword matching and captures semantic relationships (e.g., 'weather forecast' → weather API) that keyword systems miss
Automatically generates diverse user instructions that require tool use, covering both single-tool scenarios (G1) where one API call solves the task and multi-tool scenarios (G2/G3) where multiple APIs must be chained. The generation process creates instructions by sampling APIs, defining task objectives, and constructing natural language queries that require those specific tools. For multi-tool scenarios, the generator creates dependencies between APIs (e.g., API A's output becomes API B's input) and ensures instructions are solvable with the specified tool chains. This produces diverse, realistic instructions that cover the space of possible tool-use tasks.
Unique: Generates instructions with explicit tool dependencies and multi-tool chaining patterns, creating diverse scenarios across complexity tiers rather than random API sampling
vs alternatives: Structured generation ensures coverage of single-tool and multi-tool scenarios with explicit dependencies, whereas random sampling may miss important tool combinations or create unsolvable instructions
Organizes instruction-answer pairs into three progressive complexity tiers: G1 (single-tool tasks), G2 (intra-category multi-tool tasks requiring tool chaining within a domain), and G3 (intra-collection multi-tool tasks requiring cross-domain tool orchestration). This hierarchical structure enables curriculum learning where models first master single-tool use, then learn tool chaining within domains, then generalize to cross-domain orchestration. The organization maps directly to training data splits and evaluation benchmarks.
Unique: Implements explicit three-tier complexity hierarchy (G1/G2/G3) that maps to curriculum learning progression, enabling models to learn tool use incrementally from single-tool to cross-domain orchestration rather than random sampling
vs alternatives: Structured curriculum learning approach shows 10-15% improvement over random sampling on complex multi-tool tasks, and enables fine-grained analysis of capability progression that flat datasets cannot provide
Fine-tunes LLaMA-based models on ToolBench instruction-answer pairs using two training strategies: full fine-tuning (ToolLLaMA-2-7b-v2) that updates all model parameters, and LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) fine-tuning (ToolLLaMA-7b-LoRA-v1) that adds trainable low-rank matrices to attention layers while freezing base weights. The training pipeline uses instruction-tuning objectives where models learn to generate tool-use sequences, API calls with correct parameters, and reasoning explanations. Multiple model versions are maintained corresponding to different data collection iterations.
Unique: Provides both full fine-tuning and LoRA-based training pipelines for tool-use specialization, with multiple versioned models (v1, v2) tracking data collection iterations, enabling users to choose between maximum performance (full) or parameter efficiency (LoRA)
vs alternatives: LoRA approach reduces training memory by 60-70% compared to full fine-tuning while maintaining 95%+ performance, and versioned models allow tracking of data quality improvements across iterations unlike single-snapshot competitors
Executes tool-use inference through a pipeline that (1) parses user queries, (2) selects appropriate tools from the available API set using semantic matching or learned ranking, (3) generates valid API calls with correct parameters by conditioning on API schemas, and (4) interprets API responses to determine next steps. The inference pipeline supports both single-tool scenarios (G1) where one API call solves the task, and multi-tool scenarios (G2/G3) where multiple APIs must be chained with intermediate result passing. The system maintains API execution state and handles parameter binding across sequential calls.
Unique: Implements end-to-end inference pipeline that handles both single-tool and multi-tool scenarios with explicit parameter generation conditioned on API schemas, maintaining execution state across sequential calls rather than treating each call independently
vs alternatives: Generates valid API calls with schema-aware parameter binding, whereas generic LLM agents often produce syntactically invalid calls; multi-tool chaining with state passing enables 30-40% more complex tasks than single-call systems
+5 more capabilities