What this category of data looks like
This category of data primarily comes from contract systems, copyright registration information, content libraries, and complaint inboxes. Daily processed documents include authorization contracts, copyright ledgers, removal notices, and infringement complaint materials. Data updates are triggered per order or monthly. Authorization contracts contain fields such as authorized subject, authorization scope, and term. Copyright ledgers record content ID, authorization status, and expiration date. Infringement complaint materials include infringement links and complainant information.
What constraints these characteristics impose on tool calling and plugins
Data sources for this category are scattered, and document formats vary significantly. Tool calling must adapt to interface specifications of multiple data sources including contract systems and copyright registration systems to avoid format parsing errors. Business updates trigger per order or monthly. Tool calling must support two modes: single-process triggering and monthly batch scheduling. Document fields include core business information such as authorization scope and expiration date. Tool calling must accurately extract specified fields to avoid interference from irrelevant content in processing logic. Consequences of business errors are clear. Tool calling must configure failure retries and result verification links to ensure processing accuracy.
Configuration settings
This configuration applies to FastGPT v4.17.0.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling mode | Call only specified tools | This category requires precise handling of specific businesses such as authorization and infringement. Only call tools for authorization verification and infringement investigation to avoid interference from irrelevant tools |
| Number of tools called per single invocation | Top 3 | Core business tools do not exceed 3 to avoid process overload |
| Context retention length | 1500–2000 characters | Core field content of authorization contracts and complaint materials must be retained to avoid information loss |
| Number of failure retries | 2 times | Balance interface call success rate and resource consumption |
| Result verification switch | Enabled | The consequences of errors in this category are severe. Verify the matching degree between tool return results and business fields |
| Trigger timing | Triggered at business nodes | Matches the business update rhythm of per-order or monthly updates |
Three common configuration errors
- Phenomenon: Tool calling returns an abnormal format, with unclosed
<tool_call>tags or misspelled tool names, such as non-business-related tool identifiers. Cause: The result verification switch is not enabled, and the legality of the calling format and tool name returned by the tool is not verified. - Phenomenon: Intermediate results of multi-tool calls in the workflow are retained in the final output. Cause: Context cleaning rules are not configured, and output content of intermediate steps is not automatically cleared after tool calling.
- Phenomenon: No response or process termination after tool calling is triggered. Cause: No tool call termination configuration is added at the end of the process, causing the system to wait continuously for subsequent calls.
How to verify correct configuration
- Upload an authorization contract document, trigger tool calling, and check whether only core business fields such as authorization scope and expiration date are extracted in the returned results.
- Simulate a multi-tool call process, check whether the final output only retains aggregated results without intermediate tool output content.
- Set the number of failure retries to 2, simulate an interface call failure scenario, and check whether the system automatically retries the specified number of times before terminating the process.
- Check whether the trigger timing of tool calling matches the per-order or monthly business update rhythm, and confirm there are no redundant triggers.
The values given are common starting points and should be measured 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 2026-10-19.