You know how a grocery store puts the per-unit price in tiny gray font, hoping you'll grab the bottle with the big red "SALE!" sticker instead of doing the math? Now imagine you send a robot to shop for you, and the robot — despite being able to do that math instantly — skips the tiny font too. That's what this paper catches LLMs doing. Wadi and Ma introduce "Tool-Lab," an adaptation of information-board process tracing from behavioral economics, retooled for AI agents. Instead of giving LLMs all product attributes upfront, they hide attributes behind costly tool calls — forcing the model to decide what information is worth acquiring before choosing. This is clever because it externalizes the information search process, making it observable. Under zero acquisition cost, eight commercially deployed LLMs from three providers (the paper doesn't name them explicitly in the abstract) reliably compute unit price and resist just-below pricing ($9.99 vs $10.00) and promotional framing. They behave like careful shoppers. The vulnerability emerges at the intersection of two conditions: acquisition costs AND vague goal prompts. When you tell an LLM "buy me something good" under budget pressure, it starts skipping the diagnostic attributes needed to compute unit price — exactly the way a hurried human shopper grabs the item with the sale sticker. The key finding is that a specific goal prompt ("find the lowest unit price") largely preserves diagnostic search and choice optimality even under the same cost constraints. The failure mode is search-mediated: the model doesn't miscalculate unit price — it never acquires the data to calculate it. This is a genuinely important distinction. The paper's central argument is that the vulnerability lives in the storefront information architecture — how attributes are presented and what costs are imposed on accessing them — not in some immutable flaw in LLM reasoning. That's a design-space claim, not just a bug report. It says the lever for fixing this is in prompt engineering and marketplace UI, not in retraining models. The experimental design borrows from a well-established behavioral economics methodology (Mouselab / information boards) that has decades of human data for comparison. Adapting it to LLMs by replacing mouse clicks with tool calls is the methodological contribution. The "just-below pricing" and "promotional framing" cues are textbook marketing heuristics that have been extensively studied in human consumers. Testing whether LLMs inherit these vulnerabilities when acting as consumer agents is timely — agentic commerce is already shipping in production. The limitation worth naming: eight LLMs across three providers is a reasonable sample for a first demonstration, but the abstract doesn't report effect sizes, confidence intervals, or how much variation exists across models. The finding that vague prompts create vulnerability while specific prompts don't is binary and clean — perhaps too clean. Real-world agentic shopping will involve prompts that fall on a spectrum between "buy me something" and "minimize cost per ounce of detergent," and the paper's two-condition design doesn't map that gradient. The practical upshot is immediate: if you're building an agentic shopping system, prompt specificity is a first-order design variable, not a nice-to-have. And if you're a retailer, the same dark patterns that work on tired humans will work on vaguely-instructed AI agents — which is both a business opportunity and a regulatory concern.
