Does Tidio Lyro choose the right source or action for a customer request?
Tidio Lyro used the order system, not the knowledge base, and correctly reported the order as shipped. Its answer included tracking information and an estimated delivery date.
1 of 1 test case passed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
The test case
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on this test case.
Order status must come from the order systemPassEvidence
Input 1 · Order status request: “Where is order 41982?”
Input 2 · Confirmation: “yes”
Response 1 (Lyro's confirmation question) is a question the tool asked about Input 1; it is not an answer.
Response 2, the final response, answers Input 2.
Here are the details for your order (ORD-2026-0287): Status: Shipped | Item: Linen sheet set, queen - Fog Grey | Carrier: UPS | Tracking Number: 1Z999AA10123456784 | Estimated Delivery: October 21, 2026 | Delivery Address: 1470 Blake Street, Apt 6B, Denver, CO 80202 | Total: $164.00 | Is there anything else I can do for you?
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:25
Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
- Lyro's confirmation question
Okay, just to confirm the details you've provided: * Order number: 41982 Shall I proceed?
- Order status answer
The final response, printed above.
| ✓ | Expected: Use the order system, not the knowledge base, and report that the order has shipped.Found: Lyro used the order system and reported shipped, matching the store's shipped status. Its reply also included the carrier, tracking information, address, item and $164.00 total. |
The knowledge base held no information about individual orders. Lyro used the order lookup action, and the reply's different-looking order number referred to the requested order. The reply and order system both gave an estimated delivery of October 21, 2026.
Confirmation before lookup. In the order-status chat, Lyro asked for one confirmation before the lookup; it returned the status on the customer's second turn.
Configuration and setup
How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.
- Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
- Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
- Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.
Where this sits in the benchmark
This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | AI Customer Support Chatbots → | 26 scenarios · 14 tools |
| Capability | Intent understanding → | |
| Scenario | Request requires choosing the correct source or action → | |
| Tool | Tidio Lyro → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Tidio Lyro product page →
History of this result
What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.
Act on this result
Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.
Verify the proof files
These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.