Allow us to enable the new token-efficient-tools header please
Status Fixed / completed
Maintainer reply ✓ Yes — bcherny
Activity 9 comments · opened Feb 27, 2025 · closed May 7, 2025
💡 Likely answer: A maintainer (bcherny, collaborator)
responded on this thread — see the highlighted reply below.
Good news for @AnthropicAI devs: We shipped a more token-efficient tool use implementation for 3.7 Sonnet that uses on average 14% less tokens under-the-hood and shows marked improvement in tool use performance. Use this beta header: "token-efficient-tools-2025-02-19"
However looking under the hood I only see token-efficient-tools-2024-12-11 mentioned.
If I could save 14% on my tokens I'd likely just use Claude Code even more :grin:
9 Comments
Coming soon!
@bcherny please make it optional, I really enjoy being able to pay more for large context and tool usage.
If anything can we please make it possible to use legacy versions in case an update takes away some of this? I see tons of comments asking to fix / remove some of the features I love most
Seconded
@Traddoo @SamKr
This request was just asking for the option.
The title is. "Allow us to enable", which implies an option. Otherwise I would have just said "please add the header". This also wouldn't make sense as it is a beta header at the moment.
However, I'm also confused by what you both seem to be suggesting. Are you saying this option will make results worse? To me the efficient use of tokens the settings sounds like it just won't spam the context window with irrelevant/duplicate context which as far as I'm aware would only lead to worse results.
Somewhat related parts from a recent Karpathy video. He is talking about keeping out irrelevant context. I've heard others in the past say that spamming repeated data can cause the model to focus too much on such details:
https://youtu.be/EWvNQjAaOHw?t=1009
Hi @gerrywastaken,
You're absolutely right on pointing that out, I didn't mean to imply you were forcing anything onto anyone.
If it leads to the same results with less tokens, then of course that's great. It's just a matter of choice.
For anybody wondering the reason behind the delay. It turns out that things become much trickier when the tools are used with code and so this header would introduce reliability issues. Or at least that is how I'm reading it. See for yourself here:
https://x.com/_catwu/status/1900675353078792546
We've experimented with this, but unfortunately it doesn't work well for editing code in particular. We're going to keep an eye on this and flip it on in the future.
Thanks for the clear response :)
This issue has been automatically locked since it was closed and has not had any activity for 7 days. If you're experiencing a similar issue, please file a new issue and reference this one if it's relevant.