Running local models is good now

I don't know about good, I use a lot of local models and they're still pretty painful to run locally

You have dense models (qwen 27b, gemma 31b) who are pretty smart, but pretty slow

You have MoE models (gemma 26b, qwen 35b, north mini code 30b) who are pretty fast, but make a lot of mistakes

You need a lot of memory to run these well, quantization makes tool calling weaker, so most run at 4 bit quants and are wondering why it kinda sucks and that's because you've essentially lobotomized the model (I recommend unsloth quants, i recommend 6bit for MoEs and 5bit for dense)

So you need a lot of compute to make the pre-fill fast, you need bandwidth to make the decode fast, you need a lot of memory to hold everything - lot of ifs

On top of that, your laptop becomes a loud hot churning machine, it's uncomfortable to work with.

So are they good? not really. Do they work? yes

edit: just wanna clarify - i think open models are the future, i think they're super important, i'm contributing constantly to the ecosystem - i think people should play around with these models, i think people should use `pi` and learn how it all works - but don't download a model expecting it to be good out of the box, you will have to tune and configure a lot of stuff to replace a "coding agent" that most people are using models for

After having been a happy user of Qwen3.6-27B for a few weeks, due to being away from the hardware, I'm currently forced to use Claude Sonnet 4.6

It is such a downgrade. I don't understand how that's even possible. The thing has so many strongly-held opinions I did not ever ask it for, talking just way too much and generally feeling somehow dumber.

Of course, being significantly larger, it will encode more knowledge, but that doesn't help me when I hate talking to it. And all that on top of the fact that talking with it costs real money.

I wonder what it might be that makes me hate it so much. Maybe because it doesn't see itself as a tool but almost an equal? As if its opinions would have weight.

Qwen too can act like an overeager intern, but if you tell it that it is an idiot, it will drop that ego. Not so much with Claude. In my experience, anyway.

Anyway, point is: full ack on that headline.

> Security: I run every Pi session in a Docker container and give it permissions only to bash so that it can’t run Python code or do web browsing

How does that work? The script in the post references the file "docker-compose.sandbox.yml", but I don't anything about what that file does.

The post that this one links to, that it's based on, says that Pi doesn't do proper sandboxing.

Presumably bash can still execute other binaries, otherwise it would be fairly useless. What stops it from executing Python? Or opening a network connection and downloading Python?

This is the kind of thing that Anthropic et al should be worried about. As it becomes easier and easier to run local models, the ceiling of what they'll be able to charge will get lower and lower. Not that nobody will be willing to pay $$$$$ per month, but a lot of people are going to multiply the per-month charge by 12 or 24 and say "Could I set up a local model for less than that, and have it pay for itself within a year or two?" And if a significant portion of customers decide to buy instead of rent, the companies whose business model is entirely centered around renting will suddenly find themselves hurting for customers.

Show us the resulting code of using them! :) I want to use local models, I have the hardware for it, but while trying them out as replacements for GPT 5.5 xhigh or Opus or other SOTA models, they aren't quite ready to be replaced yet, sadly. The quality and bumps they encounter just slows down the workflow so much, even screwing up tool call syntax sometimes.

But, for smaller more well-defined workflows, or as straight "edit this part to be like this exact" edits, they seem more than enough. Still waiting for them to become mature enough to be able to replace what we have as SOTA today, I'd say it's ready to be switched over then.

Speaking of local models, DiffusionGemma (and diffusion models in general) should not be slept on for local usage! Usually the problem locally is that the LLMs aren't efficiently making use of your hardware, unless you start batching requests and run many at the same time, but that require different approaches in general. Instead, diffusion models work much faster for individual prompts, and not by a small margin either.

Today I finally finished porting diffusiongemma-26B-A4B-it support from Transformers into Candle, and together with some optimizations I now have it basically flying with ~450 tok/s (~19 it/s) in Candle during inference, instead of ~180 tok/s (~11 it/s) from HF's Transformers library. Even using vLLM with similar sized LLMs, I don't think I've ever gotten past the ~250 tok/s threshold for single prompts, exciting stuff for local models :)

I love running two models locally: qwen3.6 27B 8bit (dense) and qwen3.6 35B 4bit (MoE).

The 27B is the smarter, more reliable one - but it is slower. The 35B is faster, still very smart but below 27B, a bit less reliable. The reason is the MoE - Mixture of Experts architecture, which only activates a subset of parameters, making the model much much faster.

I run the 27B on a MacBook Pro M5 Max + 40 GPU cores + 128GB RAM (well, on this beast I can have 27B + 35B in memory at the same time with headroom for all the other stuff). But because this is a laptop, it is not possible to run local LLMs all the time - it just gets too hot and too loud.

What excites me more: I run the 35B model on a MacMini M4 with 64GB RAM. It is fast, it gets a lot of work done (e.g. it scans, extracts and classifies my emails, it watches the mailbox all the time and does work). I also use it as my private Hermes assistant ("when is the next Starship launch?", "who is playing today at the World Cup? Give me some trivia").

Next step I am planning is a RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell workstation I can put in my basement. I want to run qwen really fast, with multiple threads / prompts / agents at once. And MAYBE if the budget allows, a 2x RTX Pro 6000 setup in order to run DeepSeek v4 flash on it (to run research on it).

I think this is overselling their capabilities. I've used Gemma 4 and Qwen 3.6 quite a bit on my strix halo home server. They're great models and the dense variants are significantly better, but they're still very far behind the frontier. If you boot up Gemma 4 MoE and OpenCode/Pi and expect to perform anything like Claude Code or Codex you're going to be very disappointed.

I tried for my legal AI application that I'm building and it was able to do majority of the tasks. I used gemma4:26B

You can use a frontier model to create a plan that's specific enough for a local model of a very small size to execute on. The more specific you are and compartmentalize tasks the "dumber" the local model can be.

Edit: Obviously you'll be using more tokens but this is the trade off for running a smaller model and running locally. Similar to time memory trade off but in token economics. Sorry I need more coffee

It's more than good. As of today, it's great. Those models listed in the blog are horrible compared to what you can run today, There's absolutely no reason to run those, you have Qwen3.6, Gemma4, and plenty other sized comparable models.

If you're resourceful, you can even run SOTA models. KimiK2.7, MiMo-V2.5/V2.5-Pro, MiniMax2.5/2.7/3, DeepSeekV3.1/v3.2/V4-Flash/V4Pro, GLM5.1, Step3.7-Flash, Qwen3.5-397B, Qwen3.5-122B, gpt-oss-120B

I have used local models (around 128 gb) and the big proprietary models, and while I do want local models to win, it's important we keep the expectations of local models realistic. There are many blog posts about how local models today can fully replace some of the proprietary models and in some cases its true for the much smaller proprietary models, its very clearly much more behind the larger models.

You can be far more ambiguous with your tasks with the larger proprietary models as opposed to the local models. You can achieve the similar results with local models but you need to be much more detailed in your prompt.

One of the biggest things about running these local models is that the harness matters almost just as much as the model too. Codex is optimized for GPT models, CC is optimized for Claude, Cursor has a great harness that works very well across these providers. It took me a couple of iterations of the different harnesses to find one that would work well with the smaller Qwen models to do local coding.

My 2c: I think the "cloud vs local" debate is (maybe) a false dichotomy. In my experience, I use a hybrid approach and I've seen a huge productivity boost from it.

The cloud-based models are fine for big and complex tasks, but the pricing is ridiculous for small stuff—like summarizing a discussion or fixing a small bug. And cloud and privacy have never been a good match.

As an example, this comment itself was written with the help of Qwen3.5-4B running locally with an extension on top of llama.cpp default web UI [1]. The extension injects my browser's context directly into the conversation, which allows me to summarize things and draft up comments quickly. Speed is pretty acceptable for the size: ~5s TTFT and ~100 t/s generation, all running on a Macbook M5.

And when I want to run bigger tasks, I don't just stick to one provider. Apart from well-known closed-weight providers like OpenAI or Anthropic, I also experiment with open-weight models like GLM-5.1, DeepSeek V4, and Qwen3.6-27B, which provide quite good results for the price.

I'd argue both have value, and I don't see why anyone needs to choose one exclusively. Anyone else doing this?

[1]: https://github.com/ngxson/llama-companion

If vibe-coding is hopping into a self-driving car and telling it to take you anywhere you can get a coffee, then I use coding agents more like a bicycle - they let me get further faster than if I'd walked, but I still have to decide where to go and how to get there, and I still have to pedal.

I don't vibe-code, but I do decide what to implement and what patterns to use (perhaps asking the model to analyze and give advice on this first), then I have it handle the nitty-gritty of the implementation itself. For this usage style, the latest local models are as good as having Claude at home.

I won't say it's been _easy_ (I ended up implementing my own harness to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of local models), but I will say that for the effort, having a coding agent that's essentially free to query as much as I want has been life-changing as a dev, especially when it comes to working on side projects. Knowing that my agent will never get worse in quality, suddenly cost more than it does now, or be suddenly made unavailable by external factors, was absolutely worth the trouble. And on top of all that, I can't believe it's as good as it is.

You can trade off latency / accuracy / cost for any ML task. And with the local models.... the cost is free.

Having a local Qwen check another Qwen's work increases the accuracy quite a bit at the cost of more latency. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In benchmarking local models, I'm having success increasing even a 9B qwen's score on terminal-bench adjacent problems, just by asking it to plan and handing the plan back to qwen with a fresh context. Try it with Qwen3.5, unsloth Q4+, and a thinking budget of around 1024 tokens.

"Just get a 64GB Mac with 1TB of storage!"

LOL - some of us have a budget

I've been running Qwen3.6-35B-A3B (and 3.5 previously) locally and it's a great model for many small tasks, probably a significant chunk of what most normal people are using LLMs for right now.

But for coding in a harness? In my experience it's unusable even for small projects. It just gets hard stuck at every little problem, wasting hundreds of thousands of tokens trying to make a convoluted solution work instead of doing the obvious thing. Or it will spend hours trying to reason through a fairly simple code flow, incrementally adding debug print statements, only to get confused by the output and then editing completely unrelated code that it convinced itself is the problem.

I've tried instead giving Sonnet the problem description and code and have it come up with a detailed plan that Qwen should implement, but doing that actually consumes a significant amount of tokens compared to just telling it to implement everything, and the results are honestly not that much better. There are just too often subtle issues with the plan that Qwen doesn't recognize when implementing, but make the resulting solution it comes up with unusable.

Only if blessed with enough RAM and disk space,

> 64 GB RAM and 1TB storage

Ah ok, not something regular joe and jane happen to have lying around at home.

Additionally the whole configuration is still very much low level, bunch of CLI commands, and if the model doesn't fit for the task at hand, it starts allucinating, generating gibberish, whatever.

All these conversations seem like they are missing talking about planning vs execution. I want the best possible frontier model to plan out my changes. I also have a 2nd agent that is a frontier model check the plan. Then at that point the implementation can be done by a lesser and possibly local model. The frontier model can still do a final code review on the implementation of the changes.

Claude code supports this by setting the model to "opusplan"- it will automatically use Opus for planning and sonnet for implementation. This was completely necessary with the fable release. I was able to do this with fable and it was necessary to avoid getting quickly rate limited. In settings.json:

"env": { "ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_OPUS_MODEL": "claude-fable-5" },

Obviously have that set to "claude-opus-4-8" now.

I support local models and enjoy playing around with them, but even for personally development it is just more viable for me to pay $200 a month to Anthropic for the latest models. It seems to me with the cost of hardware needed to run local models that, for now, it is pure hobbyist and exploratory (which is fun in its own right)

I’m keen to understand speed here etc etc. if I bought a Mac studio with 96GB - what can I realistically run, how’s it compare to fable/opus etc and how fast is it?

Currently maxing out two Claude code accounts every x hours when working on large code migrations or setting up new iOS apps etc - most of time it’s fine but occasionally it’s mega frustrating!

Have you tried optimizing for MLX? It seems like a waste to have neural cores and not use them.

I've often wondered why the hype around apple neural core when 99% of software doesn't use them.

They are ok for simple stuff, coding is weak, chat is alright, writing is ok. But I had many of them write stories for ideas and they kept using the same names regardless of what the story was about. I can’t complain, it’s free. Can’t wait till they get even better, but for local image generation they are good, slow but just create a bunch in the background while you do other things otherwise it’s like 14.4k modems

I think a lot of people just don't have specs like that, making it still painful.

Good depends a lot. If you are in the token maxxing hype you will probably find these models very bad comparing to SOTA, unfortunately.

The good news might be: opensource models are now good (enough) for day2day usage. But is it really? I feel that companies will always naturally strive for the best and use the SOTA (as long it is not too expensive).

I see OSS models being a good backbone for companies in the future that have validated workflows and could use those for privacy or to spare costs.

IDK, might have gone a little bit off-topic here.

Just wanna say it's always fun and nostalgic to see authors pass by here who I was reading back when I started my career. I was reading Vicki's blogs way back, even remember learning some email parsing in python from her over 10 years ago. TY!

And if you want to dial in a setting in between: I've switched to Kimi K2.6 (now K2.7) and DeepSeek through OpenRouter and Reasonix for pretty much everything, with no discernible loss of analytical quality or utility.

However, like many commenters, I don't really believe in vibe-coding, long-horizon agentic one-shot agentic coding, etc. and do not use LLMs for huge generation tasks that involve designing things end-to-end.

I also have an MBP with 128 GB of unified memory and do quite a bit of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. No, it's not as smart as the aforementioned models, to say nothing of frontier, but many people seem pleasantly shocked by the number of banal tasks that do not require these.

I run local models and they work fine for me, but specifically for use in coding harnesses, I'm having a hard time. Tools tend to end up in the same loop, trying to `ls` the same folder or `grep` the same file, over and over and eating up the whole context. Super hard to get it to do anything but that. Any tips?

I love that local LLMs are being discussed more often on HN recently. But for the post, I find it strange that the author claimed they were working with local models from day 1, but wrote a post that still links to Qwen2.5 and Qwen3 in mid June 2026.

I think gemma-4-26b-a4b and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B show that there's something very interesting about a local model that does mixture-of-experts (which helps a lot with performance) and has in the order of 30 billion parameters.

These models are very capable, and use around 20-30GB of RAM while they are running.

Provided you have 64GB of RAM that leaves space for running other applications at the same time.

Because I've seen too many people spending a lot of money on expensive hardware, without really using it in the end:

Most of those models are also available via Openrouter and many other platforms. Dirt cheap, and much faster than on consumer GPUs. Perfect to try and compare the different options.

"Good" refers to the speed and not the quality. There's so much hype about Macs being great for LLMs, but nobody seems to be seriously using them for that because the open models are unfortunately so far behind.

Not related, but, I can't seem to get my copilot-cli (office is an MS shop) use qwen3.5:27b on ollama for some odd reason.

After the recent changes to usage, I've spent an annoyingly long number of hours trying to get this to work.

There are good use cases for them for sure, the Gemma 4 Good hackathon a while ago showed how local models can solve problems in health and education in areas with low connectivity or small infrastructure.

> “if we are constrained by performance and price, what architectural tradeoffs do we need to make?” a question that so far has not really been asked in the mad token gold rush.

To be fair, I think the labs are also interested in this (e.g OpenAI parameter golf). But the incentives are tricky. When the subsidies and tokenmaxxing era ends, local models will be essential.

The problem here is always the cost-benefit. For $200/mo, you're receiving subsidized best of breed access. There's no model competing for that price anywhere. If a 27B param model is what you choose, show me your hardware! I would love to be wrong...

I have been using qwen and glm based models from last 2 years, ended up buying mutiple machines for the same. Overall i feel 24vram is a must have to get get performance (speed wise) to match hosted soln. I have 2 machines a 12gb vram one and a 24gb one. On 12gb vram i get around 50tps generation and 500tps prompt processing and on 24gb one i get 180tps generation and 3500tps prompt processing. I have different configs for different scenarios and I also use llama cpp manager manage all my configs (https://github.com/anubhavgupta/llama-cpp-manager)

Looking at some benchmarks, the latest ~30B Gemma/Qwen score similar as Claude or GPT versions that were released just one year earlier. That's crazy progress. I can't imagine how it will be in a few years.

I tried some smaller Gemma4 and Qwen3.6 quants on my MBA with M5/16GB and had like 20-60 tokens per second. At 60 it felt pretty okay and that hardware is on the lower end.

I'd assume a Mac with 32-64GB memory would get some reasonable results.

> I have no concrete scientific evidence of this - my own personal vibe metric of “is a model good enough” is, “do I have to double-check it against an API model”, and GPT-OSS was the first one where I started doing that a lot less often.

The good old butt dyno!

I’ve been eyeing local models more and more with Anthropic squeezing more and more on the subscriptions. A few comments on HN had me waiting until they improved more but this article makes me wonder if I should reconsider that.

I’ve been doing some pretty niche development using a game and a script extender for said game. If these models can handle that, I’d feel good about switching.

Exact reason I'm building csuite.so, do check it out and let me know if you need early access!

Running AI on timesharing mainframes does seem like an odd final state for the world.

The challenge I have is getting a large enough context window so tool calls work reliably, the local models easily slip into hallucinated JSON tool responses and won't trigger the tools as a result.

I currently have a desktop with a 4060 ti (16gb of vram). Most models I have tested that fit within that are not good enough for anything other then type completion (in regards to coding tasks)

I have been considering getting the 58gb Mac Mini but that is a decent amount of money to spend without confirmation on a) how fast is it and b) will it work for well-defined tasks.

I am happy to pay OpenAI for a cheaper model a few generations behind. But they deprecate models aggressively. They push you to bigger and smarter models, when 95% of my work doesn’t need it.

I’d love it if model providers just let old models run and let us pay less, but the deprecation makes me want to look into local models.

the qwopus 27b model is good for grunt work style tasks, even across multiple files. Piping a bunch of things through, small factoring changes, stuff that just takes time to type out.

I wouldn't rely on it for large stuff like codex though. I haven't tried out deepseek/kimi, if we could run those locally it would be great.

Is there a local harness designed around the local model use case that is claude code like? Opencode has been problematic at times, pi works for one off for me but not back and forth conversations with the LLM. Considering I only use Qwen or Gemma models I'm close to just writing my own at this point

Local models are one of the main drivers for our installer / Desktop app for OpenClaw https://holaclaw.ai (disclaimer I am one of the founders). The smaller models are really only suitable for the most basic tasks, but if you have 32gb-64gb you can get real work done (ie complex web workflows) without third party hosted models

I wonder how much local models hallucinate. I am getting almost daily an "Honest answers: I made that up." reply from Claude Opus when I challenge some silly thing it's trying to do.

If you wanted to do some research or learn about post training and agent harnesses, is that a good option with these local models? What hardware is recommended, or easiest to go with a Mac Studio with 64GB+ RAM?

The problem with QWEN is that it just can't edit files reliably, I had to hack Pi all over to reduce the pain, but still far from perfect...does Gemma 4 strugle on this?

I don't know about good, I use a lot of local models and they're still pretty painful to run locally

You have dense models (qwen 27b, gemma 31b) who are pretty smart, but pretty slow

You have MoE models (gemma 26b, qwen 35b, north mini code 30b) who are pretty fast, but make a lot of mistakes

So you need a lot of compute to make the pre-fill fast, you need bandwidth to make the decode fast, you need a lot of memory to hold everything - lot of ifs

On top of that, your laptop becomes a loud hot churning machine, it's uncomfortable to work with.

So are they good? not really. Do they work? yes

This is basically my experience as well. I have a moderately recent but high spec desktop (Radeon 6900 XT with 16 GB VRAM, Ryzen 9 7900X 12-core, 64 GB system RAM), and I tried out some recommended models with ollama a month or two ago. Anything not geared specifically towards coding seemed to struggled with actually making tool calls instead of just stating the actions they would take without making them (and trying to get help from them to explain what I needed to configure to change that behavior was useless; qwen refused to believe that it was running in ollama and insisted that it was running from the Alibaba cloud without access to my local system), and the models intended for coding were barely thinking faster than I could type (if they had any ability to show thinking at all).

The best "free" experience I've found is using OpenCode with Big Pickle. It's not especially smart, so it often won't produce the correct result the first time, but the free tier is generous enough that I don't think I've hit the limit more than twice over around a month with frequent multi-hour sessions. If running locally is truly the goal, it's not going to fit the bill, but if the goal is just "get the best experience without having to pay for a sub or tokens", it's the least bad option I've found so far.

IMO running local models "well" still requires an expensive hardware investment. You really want 96GB of VRAM on a modern Blackwell arch to run these models with decent KV cache. Trying to run them on a unified memory Mac, an AI Max AMD processor, or a DGX Spark-alike is really just asking for trouble. Prefill kills perf.

If you throw the right GPUs at the problem, they become much better - but still not quite in the realm of Sonnet or DeepSeek 4 Flash, let alone Opus / DeepSeek Pro or Mythos/Fable/GPT-5.5.

Given enough budget, power, and cooling, you can run some pretty good data pipelines, but for code, I think it still makes sense to shell out to an API provider most of the time.

Maybe we shouldn't be running these models on laptops with their thermally constrained form factor, and we shouldn't expect quick inference on a par with a large cloud-based platform either, at least not for near-SOTA model quality. It's still worth it to avoid becoming massively reliant on centralized services.

Gemma 4 is particularly good at pipeline/automation tasks.

It outperforms all the Qwen models (even 100B+) for rule following/automation style tasks in my experience. Its image interpretation is also very good, and out-benchmarks Opus.

Qwen seems to ignore instructions and consistently outputs incorrect formats (when token generation format is not explicitly constrained)

But yes, on the DGX Spark Gemma 31B Q4 with MTP runs around 20 tok/s and Gemma 26B A4B around 60 tok/s. Still quite slow. But on a high end Nvidia card would run significantly faster and still fit in memory.

I'd recommend for anyone getting into local models to focus on memory bandwidth over RAM. Models under 100B parameters are now sufficient and hugely useful for automation.

I agree that for coding/creation use cases, there's still not a compelling argument for local models.

But e.g. if you want to scan a list of stocks and interpret news/high pass filtering, interpreting logs, interpreting screenshots, the local models are more than sufficient already.

To be honest even the cloud models are a hot mess at times. This week I’ve spent more time rejected code from OpenAI models than I have approving it.

In fact it really feels like OpenAI models have taken a nose dive this week compared with Claude. At least for my specific workloads (these things are so variable it’s like trying to compare Google results…)

Depends on what you mean by "local". On your Macbook, large dense models like Qwen 3.6 27B will be slow, sure. On a local workstation with a dedicated RTX card you can get > 100 tps, which is more than good enough to work with it, and faster than cloud models in many cases.

A median laptop is no bueno for running a reliable model(which will be qwen 27b as per my reading here and r/localllama). Powerful macs would be prevalent in certain areas of the world but in rest of the world personal machines aren't always that powerful.

Kimi 2.6 or 2.8 is what we are playing with locally. They need 512GB to 1TB to run with full capabilities so that's not exactly "desktop"

Our GPU computer server cost $110k.

I largely don't disagree with you but come to a different conclusion. I have two systems:

1) a "programming desktop" with a $500 upper mid range Ryzen (idr exact), 8GB VRAM Radeon card I bought solely for RuneScape, and 64GB ram

2) a maxed out Alienware 16 Area51, so it's a 5090 with 24GB vram and 64GB system ram. I bought it for gaming, of course.

I run qwen 3.6 35B A3B Q6 with 200k context window. I compare this to Claude pro max or whatever that I use at work.

The main difference between the machines is that the one with the RuneScape gpu does 10 TPS while the Alienware does 30-40tps. Both are fine though the 30-40tps is obviously a lot snappier.

I find with both models that:

- they do really well at "be a 30GB zip file of reddit and stackoverflow answers"

- they do really well at point fixing random bullshit errors that would otherwise waste my time (this is related to above of course)

- they do quite well at, given a pretty good specification of what you want, figuring it out, even if you've specified several steps needed

- they both cannot really be given a large ish task and left to just drive it on their own

The main difference between the two is with that last one, Claude is somewhat better and figuring SOMETHING out, but if Claude is having to figure it out, it's probably because I don't know what I want and it's very likely to not make a sane choice, and will generally produce slop given even the slightest amount of leash still.

I've also found that the boundary between "well specified small to medium thing" and "idk just do thing and figure it out" is the difference between you keeping control of the code and losing control. There's an "escape velocity" of AI use that, when you hit it, you're doomed to slop forever. (Or you have to deorbit... enjoy that).

So, are these models "worse" than Claude? Yeah. Am I looking forward to continued improvements? Yeah. But I now also have no desire to pay anthropic any amount of money, which has the nice side effect that i won't be helping them end up with so much money that they can distort our democracy.

They are still terrible at tool usage which loses 99% of the effectiveness of the agent. I've had to concede and use paid frontier models that can use tools or its not worth using agents....copy...paste....copy....paste....