Standard Benchmarks Fail -- Auditing LLM Agents in Finance Must Prioritize Risk (2502.15865v2)

Abstract: Standard benchmarks fixate on how well LLM agents perform in finance, yet say little about whether they are safe to deploy. We argue that accuracy metrics and return-based scores provide an illusion of reliability, overlooking vulnerabilities such as hallucinated facts, stale data, and adversarial prompt manipulation. We take a firm position: financial LLM agents should be evaluated first and foremost on their risk profile, not on their point-estimate performance. Drawing on risk-engineering principles, we outline a three-level agenda: model, workflow, and system, for stress-testing LLM agents under realistic failure modes. To illustrate why this shift is urgent, we audit six API-based and open-weights LLM agents on three high-impact tasks and uncover hidden weaknesses that conventional benchmarks miss. We conclude with actionable recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and regulators: audit risk-aware metrics in future studies, publish stress scenarios alongside datasets, and treat safety budget'' as a primary success criterion. Only by redefining whatgood'' looks like can the community responsibly advance AI-driven finance.