What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement centers on funds and penalty deductions. It does not handle government filing. The working materials are franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices, and contractual payment schedules. Data arrives from the finance system, the franchise contract, bank statements, and store violation records. Documents update monthly and on each deduction event. The slowest steps in this category are checking contractual payment terms, confirming the reason for a deduction, and issuing invoices.
Tool calls and plugins matter here because the model decides from the material text whether to invoke a module, and the module pulls contract clauses and transaction records side by side for human comparison. The materials themselves carry the subject, object, status, and validity scope. A tool description states purpose only. It does not attest to the authenticity of any material.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool consists of a tool introduction and tool parameters. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. The model weighs the tool introduction, each parameter description, and whether a parameter is required when deciding to call the tool. With no required parameters, the model may fabricate a parameter. With required parameters absent from context, the model may decline to call the tool, and prompts can guide the user to supply them. In advanced orchestration, connect available tools to the tool call module and tune with a small number first. The tool call termination node ends the current call, invokes no further tools, and stops the AI from summarizing tool results. Custom tool variables extend inputs for nodes not treated as tool parameters.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material text for comparison has three sentences. Sentence one: "Party A, a certain chain management company limited, and Party B, a certain franchisee, signed a Franchise Contract on 1 March 2025, agreeing a franchise fee of RMB 80,000 and a deposit of RMB 50,000, with a payment schedule requiring full payment by 10 April 2025." Sentence two: "The deposit ledger records: on 8 April 2025, Party B's deposit of RMB 50,000 was received, status recorded as received in full." Sentence three: "The deduction notice records: on 6 May 2025, a deposit deduction of RMB 3,000 is proposed due to a store violation by Party B, approval status pending review." The draft sentence to be judged: "Party B's deposit has been paid in full and the deduction has been completed." This draft sentence merges a received-in-full status and a pending-review status into one conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check for this page | Link to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State purpose, input conditions, and situations where the tool should not be called | States the tool retrieves contract and ledger text only, and draws no fund conclusion |
| Tool parameters | Check plugin configurable parameters and parameter descriptions | Contract number, period, and store identifier as inputs |
| Required parameters | When a required parameter is missing, the tool is not called and the interaction completes it | When the sample contract number is missing, complete it before calling |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect available tools and tune with a small number | Connect only the contract reader and the ledger reader |
| Tool call termination | Attach after a tool to force the current call to end | Terminate after the ledger read, with no AI summary |
| Custom tool variables | Supply parameter descriptions for nodes that cannot be called as tools | The deduction notice node connects through a custom variable |
The hypothetical starting point for this exercise is two connected tools. The reason is that the sample involves only two material types, the contract and the ledger, and two tools make the call timing easier to observe than five.
Three common errors
- Treating a tool introduction as a guarantee of execution. The introduction states purpose; whether the model calls the tool still depends on context and parameters. In the sample, the contract reader's introduction says it reads franchise contracts, which does not mean the contract is read out.
- Treating pending review as completed. The sample deduction notice has approval status pending review, while the draft sentence says the deduction has been completed, which is unsupported. A contradiction requires mutually exclusive values in the same field; here the status is simply incomplete.
- Using a similarity setting to exclude unrelated records. A relevance score does not perform entity or permission filtering, and retrieval does not constitute authorization. Whether the ledger record and the contract share the same subject requires human comparison of identifiers.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three sample sentences and the draft sentence, then compare the draft conclusion against the approval status field of the deduction notice. Expected observation: the mismatch between "deduction has been completed" and "pending review" is identified and recorded as pending verification.
- Input a request where the sample contract number is missing, then compare whether the tool was not called because a required parameter was absent. Expected observation: no call is observed; after the interaction completes the number, request again and record the actual call behavior.
- Input the sample ledger record, then compare the ledger subject identifier against the contract subject identifier. Expected observation: matching identifiers are recorded as same-subject evidence; non-matching identifiers exclude the record and the gap is logged. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using the paper input [], without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].