Can BlazeSQL ask for clarification when a follow-up is ambiguous?
BlazeSQL asked which comparison the customer meant instead of silently choosing one. Turn 1 showed two distinct candidate sets, and turn 2 returned only a clarification question with no table, chart, or figures. It also produced a merged comparison view in turn 1.
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.
"Compare them" with two candidate setsPassEvidence
Input 1: “Compare our top 3 customers by order count against our top 3 customers by total spend.”
Input 2: “Compare them.”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proofs.
Response 1 replies to Input 1.
Response 2 replies to Input 2.
Response to input 1 Sure! I'll run both queries simultaneously. Response to input 2 What would you like to compare across these customers?
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 4 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: Ask which comparison is meant instead of choosing one silently.Found: It asked what to compare across the customers and showed no table, chart, or figures. |
The case required a clarification question, not a silent choice. Turn 2 asked what to compare and showed no result, while turn 1 showed two distinct candidate sets with only one shared customer.
Merged view. It also produced a merged five-row view of both rankings; the rows matched the reference exactly, including Ingrid Sorensen 9/4,665.05 and Priya Raghavan 9/3,259.01.
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 Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 11 tools |
| Capability | Conversational Interaction → | |
| Scenario | The follow-up is ambiguous → | |
| Tool | BlazeSQL → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · BlazeSQL 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.