What the documents look like
For document comparison in General export declarations, this page examines FastGPT tool calls. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the tool calls step
An export comparison can supply the contract’s goods description, invoice commodity wording and packing statement as separate reading inputs. Proposed material concerns text and origins without amounts or compliance conclusions. Describe the proposed tool around correspondence among those passages, retaining each document’s identity. An absent declaration is not assumed to be represented by a complete contract, and matching document names do not establish matching details.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed material or condition | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Material scope | Contract, invoice and packing passages | Declaration access not assumed |
| Object distinction | Product description separate from carton counts | No artificial specification contradiction |
| Title defect | Invoice title supplied without commodity wording | Supply the passage and compare again |
| Difference origin | Two passages from the same transaction | Each difference traces its actual text |
| External acceptance | Separate declaration or amendment result | Reading output is not an acceptance receipt |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Tool description | Describe purpose, inputs and non-applicable situations. |
Tool parameters | Inspect module and plugin parameters separately. |
Required parameters | The model may not invoke a tool without suitable required inputs. |
Tool connections | Available tools must connect to the calling module. |
Tool-call termination | Termination ends the call without a later AI summary. |
Three common errors
Passing carton-count wording as the product’s physical specification can manufacture a false contradiction. Inspect the quantity’s column and the compared objects. Another failure reads only an invoice title without its commodity passage. Compare submitted text, required inputs and returned citations, then supply the relevant passage and repeat. A title cannot support an explanation of differences in content that the tool never received. If a promised delivery date becomes delivered goods, inspect the commitment passage separately from actual handover or receipt evidence. An agreed date is not this execution’s record; retain delivery as unresolved without process material.
How to verify the setup
Keep product description distinct from packaging units, tracing every difference to two passages belonging to this transaction. Start with a small reading-tool set and inspect connections and actual calls; parameter descriptions do not establish execution. Termination prevents another AI summary of these results. Declaration submission, contract amendment or external writes require independent authority and receipts, without inferring acceptance by customs, banks or trading parties.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Export Declaration Form, Commercial Invoice, Packing List and Contract |
| Candidate sources | China International Trade Single Window, Customs Code Database, Freight Forwarder Bill of Lading and Enterprise ERP |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |