Tool-using agents are commonly evaluated by a single bit: whether an end-to-end workflow completed. This metric fails to distinguish failures that matter in production, such as expired credentials, malformed payloads, or correct execution followed by incorrect final delivery. We introduce APIFlow-Bench, a fully auditable benchmark for long-horizon, dependent REST-API workflows that decomposes performance into seven engineering capabilities and requires agents to produce answers supported by the actual call path. We generate synthetic API worlds forward, subtask by subtask; each subtask is admitted only after a zero-LLM self-test triad verifies its grader and an oracle establishes solvability, and an adversarial audit identified and fixed six grader exploits. Grading is deterministic and provenance-sensitive: a state check traces a mock-minted canary through the API data flow to the response the answer must originate from, and a typed answer card is verified field by field. We release all answer keys and 44,362 unredacted execution transcripts. Across 19 frontier and open-weight models under one neutral scaffold, we find: (1) longer dependency chains degrade success, from 93% on individual subtasks to 74% on clean 20-subtask chains and 61% when including the 8% of chain trials that a model-consensus screen flags as passed by no model; (2) reliability separates models more than best-case capability, with best-of-five spanning seven points but all-five-of-five reliability spanning 44 points; (3) the independent-error account of compounding failure does not fit the data: pass rates on 20-subtask chains are 33 percentage points above the product of subtask-level rates, and on the clean slice 77% of failing runs reached the correct final state and failed only at delivery.

翻译：暂无翻译