Deploying and Evaluating a Smart-Agriculture Agentic Engine for Full-Season Soybean Farm Operations

Recent advances in agentic AI have made tool-augmented language models increasingly useful for geospatial analysis, where tasks often require data discovery, API selection, model invocation, map operations, and multi-step interpretation over spatial and temporal data. Prior geospatial agent systems have shown this potential across remote sensing, Earth observation, urban analysis, forestry, climate studies, agriculture monitoring, and satellite-vision workflows (Lee et al., 2025; Bhattaram et al., 2025). As reflected by recent releases in commercial geospatial platforms, such as Google Earth AI and Microsoft Planetary Computer offerings for agriculture and environmental monitoring, these settings are a natural fit for agents because geospatial workflows require selecting appropriate imagery or products, applying spatial filters, invoking detection or classification models, reasoning over intermediate outputs, and producing map-based results.

Despite these advances, deploying agentic systems for agricultural operations and complex agronomic spatiotemporal workflows remains difficult. Farm operations differ in three concrete ways (Yan et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2026; Xu et al., 2025; Seo and Lee, 2026; Zuzuárregui et al., 2025; Qu et al., 2026): Feedback is delayed: a poor planting decision surfaces as weak emergence days later; a missed irrigation window appears as yield loss months later. Observations are partial and spatial: sensors are zone-level across ridges, drones are weather-gated, and ground inspection is sparse, so the agent reasons over a partially observed spatial field. Consequences propagate: operational errors compound across the season, so an action can be syntactically valid and operationally wrong, such as harvesting before grain moisture is suitable.

At the same time, practical deployments of geospatial agents often inherit orchestration and evaluation practices originally developed for domains such as web automation, coding, or OS control, where feedback is immediate and the action space is bounded by application APIs. However, unlike cloud-centric remote-sensing and geospatial big-data pipelines, agricultural applications introduce a broader evaluation surface: Crop state evolves through biological growth, weather, soil-water dynamics, sensing constraints, and management interventions, so agent decisions are coupled to physical processes that unfold over days, weeks, and seasons. Ultimately, agent performance depends not only on successful tool calls, but also on spatial coverage, temporal alignment, data-product choice, and the operational meaning of the produced analysis.

In this work, we present a full-stack smart-agriculture agent system developed for an operating soybean research farm at a university smart-agriculture research site (Figure 1) spanning a 64-ridge field. Real-life field operations span ridge preparation, planting, irrigation, fertilization, pest and disease treatment, harvest, grain handling, drying, and storage. The site has production-grade machinery; a digitized sensing layer covering fixed soil and canopy sensors, multispectral and thermal drones, satellite vegetation products, and a weather station; a calibrated, physics-grounded process model; and multi-season historical harvest and yield records. We are preparing a controlled portion of this field to be operated by agents alongside the existing human-operated workflow, with the goal of comparing agent-managed and human-managed operations in upcoming harvest seasons. This makes the evaluation question practical: we need to understand how agent systems behave on real farm operations before deciding what to deploy in the field.

To this end, we develop FAIRY as a full-stack agentic research engine for the operating farm. FAIRY first integrates the farm-facing infrastructure needed for deployment: production-grade machinery, fixed soil and canopy sensors, multispectral and thermal drones, satellite vegetation products, a weather station, calibrated crop-process models, agronomic records, and multi-season yield histories. The system then organizes these components through an “everything is an event” execution model, where weather updates, remote-sensing observations, UAV inspections, sensor readings, crop-growth transitions, machinery actions, and management interventions are represented as state-changing events in a shared farm process engine. On top of this event-driven world model, FAIRY implements the agentic stack used in our evaluation: a retrieval-based knowledge library of atomic agronomic skills, nine agent controller backends with optional agent-to-agent (A2A) orchestration, frontier- and edge-model execution, full-path trace logging, and edge-device deployment profiling.

Before deploying agents on the controlled farm portion, we need an evaluation setting that can exercise farm operations beyond the limited number of observed historical seasons. The calibrated farm world model allows us to construct realistic scenarios that remain tied to our field geometry, crop-process assumptions, sensing layer, and operational workflow, while also covering conditions that have not yet occurred in the deployment record. Specifically, we build one hundred scenarios across three levels of complexity: atomic tasks, episode chains, and full-season scenarios. We develop a comprehensive evaluation suite which covers task success, temporal correctness, coverage, full-path correctness, and yield preservation. We conduct extensive metric-calibration studies that assess which trace-level metric best tracks yield, identifying temporally grounded Kendall correctness (KTC) as the best-calibrated predictor and exposing the failure modes of order-only and exact-match alternatives. Finally, we include an operational demonstration that runs the same event-driven runtime end-to-end, from a user request through drone and satellite observation to a geospatial visualization in the FAIRY interface.

Our results lead to four practical lessons for deploying agents in farm operations. First, domain expertise is the dominant lever: expert operational context reduces the full-season yield shortfall from $\sim$22% under zero context to $\sim$5% for Qwen on held-out L3 scenarios. Second, agent and farm performance diverge under longer horizons: short tasks are nearly solved, with $\geq$99% temporal correctness and near-zero yield loss, while full-season scenarios remain materially below the human oracle. Third, multi-agent A2A orchestration introduces coordination cost that degrades both correctness and yield in our setting. Fourth, agriculture-tuned LLM context is only a partial substitute for human-expert context. We report these as field observations from an operating farm; the engine, scenarios, and evaluation are documented for reproduction.

An overview of FAIRY is shown in Figure 1. The system couples an event-driven engine, a physics-grounded process stack, a tool/sensing layer, a knowledge library, and the agentic backend.

We organize results around the questions an operator would ask before deploying: what makes agents reliable (context and skills), how reliability scales with horizon, what multi-agent orchestration costs, which metric we should trust, and what deployment costs.

Expert context dominates the controller spread. Table 2 reports the held-out $N{=}70$ L3 evaluation under four in-context regimes for both backbones. Context is the dominant lever. For Qwen, moving from Zero Context to Expert Instruct cuts Yield Loss from $22.3\%$ to $4.6\%$ and raises KTC from $87.9\%$ to $92.1\%$; the Skills Library regime is close behind ($4.9\%$ Yield Loss, $93.7\%$ KTC) without any hand-written per-scenario policy. DeepSeek shows the same ordering (Zero $\rightarrow$ Expert: $12.6\%\rightarrow 2.9\%$ Yield Loss). Notably, LLM-as-an-Expert recovers only part of the gap (Qwen $15.3\%$ Yield Loss versus $4.6\%$ for human instructions), indicating that agriculture-tuned LLM context captures high-level decisions but not the full procedural discipline.

Knowledge-library structure and retrieval. Table 4 ablates how the knowledge library is organized (flat vs. tier-grouped) and how entries are ranked (manual, text similarity, path similarity) on the L3-mini set. Tier-grouped organization with similarity-based retrieval gives the strongest correctness (KTC up to $97.2\%$ for Qwen, $96.8\%$ for DeepSeek) and the best task success, while flat/manual retrieval is weaker and more variable. The effect on yield is smaller than the context effect, which is expected: retrieval quality refines how an already-grounded agent acts, whereas context grounding determines whether it acts correctly at all.

Horizon analysis: short tasks are nearly solved, full seasons are not. Table 2 reports atomic (L1) and episodic (L2) tasks. Under expert context, both horizons are essentially solved: L1 reaches $\geq$99% KTC with near-zero yield loss, and L2 reaches $\geq$98% KTC with $<$1% yield loss. The contrast with the L3 results is the central horizon finding: short tasks mostly test whether the scaffold can select tools and satisfy local preconditions, whereas full-season scenarios test whether decisions remain coherent after their effects propagate through soil state, growth, stress accumulation, treatment residuals, harvest timing, and storage. Yield loss is where the horizon bites: it is small on L1/L2 but reaches double digits on L3 under zero context.

Multi-agent orchestration introduces coordination cost. Table 3 compares direct tool access against A2A routing, where the controller coordinates with weather, sensing, machinery, and operations specialists. Averaged over contexts, A2A degrades both correctness and yield on both backbones: Yield Loss rises from $7.1\%$ to $31.2\%$ (DeepSeek) and from $10.7\%$ to $29.4\%$ (Qwen). Token cost per scenario drops because work is offloaded to specialists, but the main controller frequently loses track of what each specialist observed or executed. The effect is controller-dependent (tree search is comparatively robust), consistent with coordination-overhead observations in other expert-level multi-agent studies (Lee et al., 2025; Badmus et al., 2027). Early analysis suggests errors due to task decomposition issues, so we plan a detailed failure taxonomy as future work.

Which trace metric predicts yield? Figure 6 (left) and Table 6 regress each metric against biological yield preservation across the full sweep. Overall, we observe that KTC is the best-calibrated predictor as it lies almost on the unit line. Moreover, we note that BFCL’s high $R^{2}$ performance comes from robustly identifying catastrophic “never harvested” runs (zero recovered yield), rather than grading quality among completing runs: it detects failure but may be poorly calibrated. Overall, the results show that existing practices of order-only and exact-match metrics might not fully capture downstream tasks. Overall, we consider the following for our practical deployment and future work: report KTC for trace-level correctness and Yield Loss for outcome, and treat exact-match success as a failure detector rather than a quality measure.

Edge deployment profiling. Because field deployment cannot assume frontier-API availability, we assess performance and cost under edge deployment considerations. Table 5 shows that local vLLM execution can support L1 and L2 farm tasks with low yield loss across several mid-size models, but full-season L3 scenarios separate models more clearly: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8 and Qwen3.6-27B-FP8 keep yield loss near 2%, while smaller or assistant-tuned variants degrade sharply. In practice, this suggests that edge deployment is feasible for farm-agent evaluation, but full-season autonomy still requires models with enough planning capacity.

Per-controller robustness. Figure 5 summarizes the performance across the 9 different agentic back-ends on the L3-mini set across the four in-context regimes. Overall, we observe that in-context operational grounding is the dominant factor across backbones: moving from zero context to the skills library or expert instruction reduces average yield loss from 19.9% to 2.9%/2.1% for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and from 12.8% to 2.2%/3.0% for DeepSeek-V4-Flash. In practice, this means that the farm deployment cannot rely on generic, state-of-the-art agent scaffolds alone; agents need explicit agronomic skills or expert operational context to preserve yield under full-season decision sequences.

We demonstrate FAIRY on a real-farm inspection episode at the HIT smart-agriculture site. As shown in Figure 7, the demonstration focuses on the following L2 episode: a user issues a field-monitoring request, and the agent must coordinate satellite and drone observations, crop-identification tools, post-processing, and the FAIRY UI to return an interpretable inspection result. The integrated episode exercises the full observation workflow: the agent first triggers the drone API, retrieves and classifies satellite imagery while the drone is in flight; it then retrieves the drone result, generates the orthomosaic, plots the patrol path, runs field/crop analysis, integrates satellite and drone findings, and updates the UI display tool to render base-map context, classification results, the patrol path, and image-analysis products. Overall, this demonstration provides us with a working deployment prototype and end-to-end path from user request, through event-driven agent execution, to farm-facing geospatial visualization.

From expert instructions to reusable skills. Encoding tacit expert knowledge as scenario-specific instructions is effective for evaluation but does not scale: each new task or seasonal edge case would need another written policy. Organizing this knowledge into retrievable, composable skill libraries is the scalable alternative, consistent with the use of structured knowledge pools in power-grid (Badmus et al., 2027) and Earth-observation (Bhattaram et al., 2025; Shabbir et al., 2026; Chen et al., 2026; Feng et al., 2026) agents; our library ablation is a first step in this direction.

Full-path evaluation paired with farm objectives. A planting, irrigation, or spraying decision can look locally plausible while still causing downstream yield loss, so the downstream objective must be evaluated alongside the action trace. KTC and Yield Loss diagnose different failure modes: a high-KTC, high-yield-loss run shows that small operational differences can have physical consequences, while a lower-KTC, low-yield-loss run shows deviation from the reference trace that nonetheless preserved the outcome. Our metric-calibration study sharpens this: among trace metrics, temporally grounded correctness tracks yield, whereas flat order metrics and success measures do not. We note that the current analysis aggregates results at the scenario level. A natural next step is ridge-level spatial analysis, including whether errors cluster around sparsely instrumented ridges, low-observability zones, or operations that depend on UAV and satellite coverage.

Agent orchestration should preserve operational state. Planning, memory, retrieval, verification, and specialist decomposition can improve the execution trace, but they do not remove the need to maintain agronomic and operational assumptions across time. Splitting the farm interface into specialists matches the structure of real farm systems, yet introduces state-sharing requirements; if the controller loses track of what each specialist observed or executed, orchestration becomes error-prone. The design requirement is not only better decomposition but preserving shared farm state, timing constraints, and task context across agent boundaries.

LLM-as-an-Expert context. Even when a domain LLM (Wang et al., 2025) is given the scenario, tools, world state, and a matched response template, it does not fully match human experts on procedural ordering. This does not make the domain LLM unhelpful, as it recovers high-level crop-management choices, but it motivates structured knowledge libraries that complement both LLM-distilled and human-written guidance.

Quality of human-annotated solutions. Because every trace metric compares against a human-oracle workflow, the oracle must be a fixed, shared artifact; regenerating it across software versions or machines introduces drift that silently changes every metric. We recommend version-controlling and serializing the oracle workflows alongside each scenario. Moreover, a timing-aware metric can only be validated where mistiming actually costs yield, making such information available in the oracle traces particularly important. The next stage of deployment is to run an agent-managed plot alongside the human-operated workflow and compare both operational traces and harvested outcomes under real seasonal conditions.

We presented FAIRY, a deployable smart-agriculture agentic engine, and used it for a full-season spatiotemporal evaluation of contemporary agent practices on an operating soybean research farm. Expert context and retrievable agronomic skills are the dominant levers for long-horizon reliability; multi-agent orchestration and deployment cost are practical constraints; and among trace-level metrics, temporally grounded correctness is the one that tracks real yield. These results inform our next stage: operating a dedicated plot under agent management alongside the human-operated farm. We hope FAIRY provides the community a deployable, spatiotemporally grounded reference point for evaluating agents in other physical-process settings. Our entire working prototype can be found here: https://github.com/Fengrui-Lab/FAIRY