What the documents look like
For document comparison in Amazon FBA preparation, 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 FBA transaction reading can compare procurement wording with the subject named in an inbound plan, without treating the plan as receipt by the platform. Proposed text supplies procurement passages, the plan and their identities while lacking actual receipt evidence. Limit the proposed tool to those inputs and trace required passages to their sources. A carton label may locate a record without establishing completed inbound handling.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed material or condition | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Plan status | Procurement text and inbound arrangement | Not rewritten as platform receipt |
| Shipment identity | Plan from another shipment introduced | Remove mismatch before comparison |
| Aggregate scope | Item inventory without this shipment’s linkage | It does not replace transport evidence |
| Actual invocation | Small reading-tool set and present inputs | Citations match transmitted passages |
| Action result | Separate replenishment or compensation handling | Text agreement does not establish acceptance |
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
A plan from another shipment produces irrelevant differences even when the report looks complete. Inspect plan identity and the passages, remove unrelated material and retest this shipment. Another failure treats aggregate item inventory as this shipment’s receipt evidence. Compare the returned record’s coverage with the answer’s conclusion, retaining the absent shipment linkage instead of substituting an aggregate field for transport evidence. If a created carton label becomes collection of this shipment, inspect label-creation wording and the carrier’s corresponding receipt passage. A label does not establish started transport, and comparison output is not logistics evidence.
How to verify the setup
Repeat with corresponding shipment material and inspect actual connections, invocation inputs and citations, separating textual correspondence from physical receipt. Initially connect only the tools needed for this reading. Collect absent passages and verify behavior without promising invocation. A termination node ends the current call with no later AI summary. Procurement amendments, replenishment or compensation applications require separate authority and actual records; agreement between texts does not establish platform processing.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | FBA Inbound Plan, Carton Label, Inventory Report and Compensation Application |
| Candidate sources | Amazon Seller Central, FBA Inventory Report, Freight Forwarder Tracking and ERP Purchase Order |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |