What the documents look like
For document comparison in General import 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 import comparison should first distinguish invoice goods wording from transport identifiers on the bill of lading. Proposed inputs supply both passages and contractual correspondence while lacking manufacturer model evidence. Limit a proposed tool to reading supplied text, expressly excluding technical product identification. Inspect the meanings of system-module and plugin parameters separately; a tool’s name does not establish access to every import record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed material or condition | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose scope | Invoice wording and transport identifiers | No technical product-identification claim |
| Mark misreading | Shipping mark treated as manufacturer model | Inspect columns and repair the objects |
| Source substitution | Arrival notice supplied instead of contract evidence | Trace the actual request’s origin |
| Model gap | Manufacturer guidance not supplied | Difference explanation retains the unknown |
| Business judgment | Separate declaration or payment evidence | Comparison does not replace business determinations |
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
Treating a shipping mark as a manufacturer model can turn different descriptions into a false mismatch. Inspect each passage’s column and purpose, repair the compared objects and rerun. A separate failure supplies an arrival notice where required input asks for contractual evidence. Inspect the request’s origin and obtain the relevant contract passage. A nonempty text value does not establish that the required source was supplied. If import-declaration text records submission but comparison reports completed processing, inspect its stage and corresponding response. Trade documents do not provide that institutional result, and a heading cannot supply completed status without the reply.
How to verify the setup
Retain separate scopes for transport identifiers, trade wording and manufacturer guidance, tracing each difference to actual input and keeping absent model evidence explicit. Suitable required inputs may be missing and invocation may not occur; collect material through interaction and inspect the request without promising automatic questioning. Termination prevents a subsequent AI summary. Declaration, procurement acceptance or payment requires independent authorization and records, without treating differences as customs or banking advice.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Import Declaration Form, Commercial Invoice, Packing List, Bill of Lading and Contract |
| Candidate sources | International Trade Single Window, Customs Tariff, Freight Forwarder Arrival Notice and Foreign Exchange Payment Slip |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |