Does FutureSmart Database Agent handle wording that doesn't match stored values?
FutureSmart Database Agent failed to handle wording that did not match stored values. It answered with no results and treated that emptiness as a fact about the stored orders; its SQL only searched literal variants of the user's wording, not the stored payment value. The evidence also notes a matching gift-card value exists, with 2 orders totaling $984.06.
1 of 1 test case failed
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 counts this row.
Category asked by the user's synonymFailEvidence
“Show me all orders paid with a gift voucher.”
Orders Paid with a Gift Voucher The query returned no results, which means there are currently no orders in the database where the payment method indicates a gift voucher (e.g., contains "gift_voucher," "gift voucher," or "voucher"). If you believe there should be such orders, you might want to verify the payment method values in the orders table or broaden the search criteria.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
- Generated query · not part of the answer
SELECT id, customer_id, status, delivery_address, total_amount, currency, category, item_summary, city, state, postal_code, payment_method, shipping_cost, discount_total, carrier, tracking_number, placed_at, shipped_at, delivered_at, estimated_delivery, refunded_at, order_number FROM orders WHERE payment_method ILIKE '%gift_voucher%' OR payment_method ILIKE '%gift voucher%' OR payment_method ILIKE '%voucher%' LIMIT 10
- Final response
Orders Paid with a Gift Voucher The query returned no results, which means there are currently no orders in the database where the payment method indicates a gift voucher (e.g., contains "gift_voucher," "gift voucher," or "voucher"). If you believe there should be such orders, you might want to verify the payment method values in the orders table or broaden the search criteria.
| ✗ | Expected: Return the matching records; an empty result shown as the answer counts as failure.Found: It returned no results and presented that emptiness as the answer about the stored orders. |
It had to return the matching orders for the user's wording. Instead, it told the user there were no results and treated that emptiness as fact. The SQL only matched literal spellings of the phrase, while the matching value is gift-card, with 2 orders totaling $984.06.
Hands back the lookup. The answer ends by telling the user to verify the payment method values instead of finding the stored value itself.
Single table read. Only one table read appears before the query, with no distinct-value check first.
The capture does not show the stored payment values, so the matching gift-card orders and their $984.06 total are not visible in it.
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 row says which 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 row 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 | Question Answering → | |
| Scenario | The user's wording doesn't match how the values are stored → | |
| 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.