What the documents look like
For document comparison in JD POP seller operations, 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
A JD POP comparison can distinguish questions answered by product information, a shipping-time agreement and a repair record. Proposed material supplies passages from each, including repair within the warranty period, without treating repair itself as a conflicting promise. Limit a reading tool to supplied records. Required inputs need actual sources; describing a parameter as an agreement does not establish access to all currently applicable terms.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed material or condition | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Three scopes | Product, agreement and repair passages | Repair is not automatically a broken promise |
| Agreement identity | Terms from another cooperation introduced | Remove mismatch and compare again |
| Title-only gap | Repair title without handling details | No performance judgment from the heading |
| Actual source | Request, invocation and returned citations | Each judgment traces a supplied passage |
| Business determination | Separate responsible-party approval or amendment | Tool output is not a platform decision |
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
Comparing current product material with another cooperation’s agreement can manufacture irrelevant differences. Inspect item identity, agreement scope and actual request passages, removing unrelated text before retesting. Another failure supplies a repair title without handling details and concludes that service was not performed. Inspect what the returned citation supports and request handling evidence, retaining the question rather than inferring either breach or completed performance. If repair within warranty is described as a broken promise, inspect warranty scope, the recorded repair stage and this handling evidence. Repair occurrence alone does not establish breach, and comparison output is not actual service verification.
How to verify the setup
Compare actual requests, calls and passage origins, checking whether the answer distinguishes product wording, service commitments and the current handling state. Start with a small connected tool set, collecting absent suitable required inputs through interaction before checking behavior. Termination ends the present tool call without another AI summary. After-sales approval, amendments and procurement actions require separate permission and records, without treating comparison as a platform or counterparty determination.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Product Information Sheet, Shipping Time Agreement, Dispute Resolution Form and Warranty Service Records |
| Candidate sources | JD Seller Backend, JD Help Center, JD Open Platform Rules and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |