Radiology, with its heterogeneous modalities, anatomies, and evolving protocols, is a natural yet high-stakes testbed for agentic AI. As LLMs grow more capable and tool ecosystems such as MCP and Agent Skills more complex, their capability boundaries in radiology remain unclear. We introduce RadA-BenchPlat, a two-layer benchmark spanning idealized reasoning and real-world execution: a synthetic layer with 2.2k clinician-verified records, 24.2k QA pairs, and 10 tool categories under diverse availability settings; and a real-environment layer pairing 165 2D/3D cases with executable tools for grounding, diagnosis, and report generation. We find that high completion rates under idealized settings do not carry over to real environments, where the best agents trail their upper bound by ∼15% and drop to 0.327 on long-chain tasks. Prompting strategies (few-shot exemplars, multi-agent coordination) and AutoTB (on-the-fly synthesis of missing tools) mitigate execution drift and breakdowns in difficult scenarios—lifting execution success to 94.5%—yet remain not fully reliable. Overall, our findings suggest that radiology agents are no longer limited to conceptual demonstrations, but are beginning to show potential for real-world applications.

This paper introduces a novel, entity-aware metric, termed as Radiological Report (Text) Evaluation (RaTEScore), to assess the quality of medical reports generated by AI models. RaTEScore emphasizes crucial medical entities such as diagnostic outcomes and anatomical details, and is robust against complex medical synonyms and sensitive to negation expressions. Technically, we developed a comprehensive medical NER dataset, RaTE-NER, and trained an NER model specifically for this purpose. This model enables the decomposition of complex radiological reports into constituent medical entities. The metric itself is derived by comparing the similarity of entity embeddings, obtained from a language model, based on their types and relevance to clinical significance. Our evaluations demonstrate that RaTEScore aligns more closely with human preference than existing metrics, validated both on established public benchmarks and our newly proposed RaTE-Eval benchmark.