Declaration Materials and File Review for Investment Project Approval and Post-Evaluation: Tool Calling and Plugins

Declaration Materials and File Review for Investment Project Approval and Post-Evaluation: Tool Calling and Plugins

What the data for this category looks like

Core data for this category originates from the state-owned assets investment supervision system, enterprise ERP and project management systems, industry market data, and audit financial statements. Data is updated on a quarterly basis. Daily processed documents include annual investment plans, project proposals, feasibility study reports, due diligence reports, asset appraisal reports, and post-investment evaluation reports. Most document structures combine structured fields and unstructured text. Dedicated fields include project investment amount, implementation cycle, risk rating, and post-investment benefits. No unified fixed format exists for these documents.

What constraints do these characteristics impose on the tool calling and plugins workflow

Dispersed data sources mean tool calling requires interfacing with multiple systems, and must adapt to data source access rules with different permission levels. Quarterly update frequency requires tool calling to support batch processing of historical batch data, to avoid overloading data volume in single calls. The mixed structured and unstructured document feature requires tool calling to support both field extraction and text semantic parsing, to adapt to declaration materials and files in different formats. The presence of dedicated fields requires tool configuration to support custom field mapping, to ensure the review process accurately matches business requirements.

How to set up configurations

Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.

Configuration ItemRecommended SettingRationale
functionCallenabledTool calling is required to extract structured fields and parse unstructured text, adapting to the mixed format of declaration materials and files
toolChoiceautoThe system can automatically select appropriate tools based on input content, without manual specification, adapting to multiple types of business documents
Tool call timeout threshold60 secondsWhen interfacing with multiple system data sources, typical response times fall within this range, and a timeout can trigger a retry mechanism
Single tool call context limit800–1200 charactersThe length of single-segment content for documents in this category falls within this range, avoiding context overflow
Custom field mappingConfigure according to the business field listDedicated fields such as project investment amount and implementation cycle exist for this category, requiring precise mapping to tool call parameters

Three common configuration mistakes

  • Symptom: A function call not supported error is returned when calling a tool, or tool calling has no response. Cause: A proxy tool that does not support functionCall is used, and the adapted AI proxy configuration is not switched to.
  • Symptom: Tool calling returns empty results, or extracted fields do not match business requirements. Cause: Custom field mapping is not configured, so the tool cannot recognize dedicated business fields for this category.
  • Symptom: Tool calling times out, or batch processing of quarterly data fails. Cause: A reasonable timeout threshold is not set, or the single call context exceeds the adaptive range, preventing the system from fully processing document content.

How to confirm configuration is complete

  • Trigger tool calling, and check if logs include functionCall trigger records to confirm the configuration has taken effect.
  • Upload a standard project proposal, and check if the fields extracted by the tool match the preset business field list.
  • Simulate a timeout scenario, verify if tool calling triggers a retry mechanism, and confirm the timeout threshold configuration is reasonable.
  • Test tool calling for multiple types of documents, and confirm the toolChoice automatic tool selection logic meets expectations.

The values provided are common starting points, and should be evaluated against the reader's own samples.

Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-28.