Humans know when to reach for help e.g. $347 \times 28$ warrants a calculator while $2+2$ does not. Language models do not. Prompt-based approaches can instruct a model when to invoke tools, but this scaffolding does not teach it to recognize the boundary of its own knowledge. RL approaches that assign a single outcome reward to the whole trajectory fare no better: trajectory-level credit cannot isolate which tool call in a successful episode actually helped, nor penalize unnecessary calls. We propose \textbf{CARL} (\textbf{C}ompetence-\textbf{A}ware \textbf{R}einforcement \textbf{L}earning), which trains a critic on the model's own rollouts to learn where parametric knowledge suffices and where it needs external help. By decomposing each rollout at natural tool-use boundaries (e.g., code fence delimiters and context block transitions), CARL assigns independent credit to each segment from a single binary outcome, without external judges or step-level annotations. As a result, erroneous tool calls, incorrect extractions, and unnecessary calls each receive appropriately signed advantages. The trained critic captures the model's domain competence: it separates parametrically solvable from tool-dependent questions with AUC 0.93 at 7B. On five benchmarks spanning arithmetic, multi-hop factual QA, and numerical reasoning over financial tables, CARL improves exact-match accuracy by 6.7 points at 7B and 9.7 points at 3B over the best RL baseline, with the largest gain (+8.3 EM at 7B, +9.0 EM at 3B) on Musique. The model issues 53\% fewer tool calls on parametrically answerable questions while remaining ${\sim}10$ EM points more accurate on them. Gains are largest at small scale: the 3B improvement is $1.4\times$ the 7B improvement, suggesting that knowing when to ask disproportionately benefits models with smaller parametric memory.