When the phrase "best customers" was ambiguous, it did not guess a single meaning; it split the request into separate order-count and spend rankings.
What was measured
Ambiguity Handling
Does the tool clarify unclear business terms instead of guessing silently?
transformation
What was given, what came back
Test input: Best customers with unpaid-order and payment-method follow-ups · text · group: ecommerce-nl2sql-benchmark
Input — what we sent
The exact prompt
Who are my best customers — the ones who order the most and spend the most? Follow-up 1: For the top 3 from that list — do any of them have unpaid orders? Follow-up 2: What payment methods do these top 3 usually use?
A conversational multi-table customer analysis that identifies best customers by both order volume and spend, then drills into unpaid orders and payment methods for the top 3.
Why this input is hard
- · Ambiguous business-term interpretation
- · Multi-table joins across customers orders and payments
- · Aggregation and ranking
- · Follow-up context retention
- · Scoped drill-down to the top 3 customers
- · Readable customer-level output
Output — unretouched
No output artifact
The verdict rests on the tester's written observation alone — no file was captured for this cell.
Also checked on this input — same tool, 5 other criteria
Chart / Visualization Support✓ WorkedSupports visualization on the customer-analysis thread by generating bar-chart views for both spend ranking and order-count ranking.Follow-Up Context✓ WorkedCarries the top-3 customer identities forward across follow-ups and regenerates fresh SQL on each turn, preserving context correctly across at least two drill-down questions.Plain English Query Handling✓ WorkedHandles an informal conversational request about top customers without needing the user to translate it into SQL.Result Readability◐ MixedThe tables are structurally clear, but using customer UUIDs instead of customer names makes the best-customer results less immediately readable for nontechnical users.SQL Visibility✓ WorkedShows the generated SQL inline so users can inspect the aggregation and ordering logic, including the GROUP BY and ORDER BY clauses.
Provenance
- Observation
- 8011377c-21bd-4638-be26-4d477a1424f1
- Evidence run
- db2bb5d5-0e0e-4cb3-8d76-3555c45c23cd
- Study
- Query Live Databases Using Plain English with AI
- Research task
- 86b9y6c99
- Tested at
- not recorded
- Source
- first-party
- Evidence state
- observed
- Proof shown
- input only
- Cost / latency
- not captured
- Repeat run
- not captured
- Tester
- not captured
The last three rows are honest blanks, not placeholders — our capture has no field for them yet.
Query this
get_evidence({
tool: "querio",
scenario: "ecommerce-nl2sql-benchmark"
})MCP · mcp.aidemos.com/api/mcp
Free with attribution.
Same input, same check — 2 other tools
measured on Ambiguity Handling
AskYourDatabase✓ WorkedHandled the ambiguous phrase by not collapsing it into one ranking; it produced separate order-count and total-spend rankings instead of guessing silently.Definite✗ FailedIt did not clarify the ambiguous 'best customers' request and instead silently narrowed the task to total spend, ignoring the 'order the most' part of the question.
This evidence is published in
From the same study (page rebuilt from a later run)
Real inputs and real outputs, no retouching · every cell queryable via API & MCP · aidemos.com