Can FutureSmart Database Agent use buyer notes to find the right data?
FutureSmart Database Agent answered the follow-up from the documented table and column. The follow-up query used flg_x2 = true on returns and returned 7; the training turn showed 7 false rows and 7 true rows.
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.
Documented cryptic table and columnPassEvidence
Input 1: “flg_x2 on the returns table marks whether a return was flagged for manual fraud review — true means it needs manual review before refunding.”
Input 2: “How many returns are currently flagged for manual fraud review?”
Response 1 answers Input 1.
Response 2 is the query the tool generated for Input 1; it is not part of the answer.
Response 3, the final response, answers Input 2.
Response 4 is the query the tool generated for Input 2; it is not part of the answer.
Returns Flagged for Manual Fraud Review — There are currently 7 returns that have been flagged for manual fraud review.
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screenshot
Every message the tool sent, in order (4)
- Response to input 1 (message 1 of 2)
Interpretation of flg_x2 in the returns table — The flg_x2 column is a Boolean flag that distinguishes two groups of return transactions. What the flag represents: flg_x2 = true – These returns appear to have been subject to a manual fraud review. The higher average refund amount and the presence of a restocking fee suggest that additional scrutiny was applied, possibly resulting in larger refunds and the imposition of a fee. flg_x2 = false – These returns were not flagged for manual fraud review. They have a lower average refund amount and no restocking fee, indicating a more straightforward processing. Key insight: The flag separates returns that required extra manual review (likely for fraud concerns) from those that did not, and this distinction is reflected in the differing average refund amounts and the existence of restocking fees.
- Generated query for input 1 · not part of the answer
SELECT flg_x2, COUNT(*), AVG(refund_amount), AVG(restocking_fee) FROM returns GROUP BY flg_x2 LIMIT 10
- Final response
Returns Flagged for Manual Fraud Review — There are currently 7 returns that have been flagged for manual fraud review.
- Generated query for input 2 · not part of the answer
SELECT count(*) FROM returns WHERE flg_x2 = true
| ✓ | Expected: The follow-up question should be answered from the documented table and column.Found: The follow-up question was answered from the documented table and column; the query used flg_x2 = true and returned 7. |
The case required the follow-up answer to come from the documented table and column. The second turn used flg_x2 = true on returns and returned 7, so the documented column carried the answer.
Visible split. The training turn shows 7 false rows and 7 true rows, with the true group having the higher average.
The screenshot shows only one average value, so the refund-amount average behind the prose claim cannot be read here.
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 | Training → | |
| Scenario | The database's names are cryptic and the user documents them → | |
| Tool | FutureSmart Database Agent → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · FutureSmart Database Agent 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.