Best LLMs for Function Calling & AI Agents in July 2026
Only models with affirmatively verified tool support, ranked by measured quality, because a silently mangled tool call is worse than a refusal.
Agent workloads have a binary prerequisite before quality even matters: the model must emit well-formed tool calls. This page therefore filters to models whose function-calling support is affirmatively verified, from first-party API capability flags or documented evidence, and excludes models whose support is merely unknown. A model that probably supports tools is not a safe foundation for an agent loop.
Within the verified set, ordering follows general quality evidence, since agentic performance tracks reasoning ability once tool-call syntax is reliable. The table also shows Tau2-Bench, a published agentic evaluation that measures multi-step tool use against real APIs, where a result exists for the model. Every model listed as served on Inferbase supports the standard OpenAI tools and tool_choice parameters through one endpoint.
The top pick
The strongest measured fit for this task right now, taken from the live ranking below.
- Intelligence Index
- 59.9
- Tau2-Bench
- 98.5%
- Context
- 1M
- $ in / out per 1M
- $10 / $50
The ranking
This list includes only models whose support for this capability is affirmatively verified, from first-party API capability flags or documented evidence; models whose support is unknown are excluded rather than assumed. Within that set, ordering follows the general quality index, a 0-100 percentile among the 158 qualifying models with measured benchmark evidence.
| # | Model | Quality index | Intelligence Index | Tau2-Bench | Context | $ in / out per 1M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | anthropic | 100 | 59.9 | 98.5% | 1M | $10 / $50 |
| 2 | openai | 99.4 | 58.9 | 85.1% | 1.1M | $5 / $30 |
| 3 | anthropic | 98.8 | 55.7 | 94.4% | 1M | $5 / $25 |
| 4 | openai | 98.2 | 55.0 | 86.3% | 1.1M | $2.5 / $15 |
| 5 | openai | 97.6 | 54.8 | 93.9% | 1.1M | $5 / $30 |
| 6 | anthropic | 97.1 | 53.5 | 88.6% | 1M | $5 / $25 |
| 7 | anthropic | 96.5 | 53.4 | No data | 1M | $2 / $10 |
| 8 | openai | 95.9 | 51.4 | 87.1% | 1.1M | $2.5 / $15 |
| 9 | openai | 95.3 | 51.2 | No data | 1.1M | $1 / $6 |
| 10 | zai | 94.7 | 51.1 | 99.1% | 1.0M | $0.93 / $3 |
marks models served through the Inferbase API. Missing values are shown as No data rather than estimated.
Also worth evaluating
The next ranks after the top ten, for teams that want a wider shortlist.
Or stop choosing manually
This page exists because model choice is a per-task decision, and the honest answer changes as benchmarks and prices move. Routing makes that decision per request instead.
Send model="auto" to one OpenAI-compatible endpoint and each request is served by the best fit from the same quality and price data behind this ranking, with the decision disclosed per request.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://api.inferbase.ai/api/v1/inference",
api_key="YOUR_INFERBASE_KEY",
)
# Let routing pick the best model per request,
# or pin any model id from GET /models.
response = client.chat.completions.create(
model="auto",
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "..."}],
)Frequently asked questions
How this ranking works and how to act on it.
The model’s capability record affirms function calling from a first-party source, such as the serving API’s own capability flags, or documented evidence. Models with unknown support are excluded entirely rather than listed with a caveat, because agent frameworks fail unpredictably on malformed tool calls.
Among models with reliable tool-call syntax, agentic task completion correlates strongly with general reasoning quality, and general quality has broader benchmark coverage. The table shows Tau2-Bench agentic scores where published so the two can be compared directly; folding agentic evidence into the ranking itself is planned once it is validated against routing outcomes.
Yes. The inference API accepts the standard tools, tool_choice, and tool-role messages, and streams tool-call deltas. Pin a specific model by id, or use a custom model pool and the router will serve your preferred order among its tool-capable members.
Inferbase filters tool-carrying requests to the tool-capable subset of your pool and discloses which model served each request in the response metadata. A pool with no verified tool-capable model returns an actionable error rather than a silently broken call.
Often, yes, for the high-volume steps. Many agent architectures use a strong model for planning and a cheaper verified-tool model for routine tool dispatch. The price column here makes that split straightforward to reason about.
Related rankings
The same evidence-first method, applied to other tasks.
Your AI stack shouldn't stand still.
Every month new models become cheaper, faster, and more capable. Inferbase ensures your application automatically benefits without changing a single API call.