What the documents look like
Retail checkout and loyalty promotion work compares contract and transaction materials across four document types: promotional price tags, membership point rules, daily checkout reports, and exception refund slips. The POS system, membership CRM, payment platform, and price tag system each generate records, and store checkout supervisors, CRM operations staff, and finance auditors hold different parts of the material. A promotional price tag states the applicable price for members and non-members for one item during one period. Membership point rules state accumulation and redemption conditions. A daily checkout report summarizes transaction amounts and differences per shift. An exception refund slip records the refund reason and processing status. These materials sit in separate systems and update daily or per shift, so comparison places the same subject, the same period, and the same field side by side.
The comparison task does not treat retrieval or form collection as authorization. A search result or a collected value is material awaiting verification, not a completed business action. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require their own downstream implementation.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool call node decides whether to invoke a tool from the tool description and the parameter descriptions. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. Each parameter carries two key values: the parameter description and whether it is required. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call the tool, and a prompt can guide the user to supply it. When no parameter is required, the model may generate a parameter value on its own. The tool call termination node ends the current call, invokes no further tools, and stops the AI from summarizing tool results. Custom variables extend tool input so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can enter the call chain. In advanced orchestration, available tools connect to the tool call module, and connecting a tool separates its input from ordinary input and lets the description be edited so the call timing is more precise. The documentation advises adding few tools at a time and tuning before adding more.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A store's promotional price tag for 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 reads: "Item A member price 9.9 yuan, non-member price 12.9 yuan, valid 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025." The membership point rule for the same period reads: "Members accumulate 1 point per 1 yuan spent; redemption ratio 100 points to 1 yuan." The daily checkout report shows 12 member transactions of Item A on 15 March 2025 with 118.8 yuan actually received. The draft sentence under review is: "On 15 March 2025, all Item A member transactions settled at 9.9 yuan, consistent with the promotional price tag." This draft sentence must be compared field by field against the price tag text, the report's received amount, and the transaction count.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State "compare promotional price tag and daily checkout report for the same item and same period" | Matches the comparison target of the draft sentence; compare whether the description covers this field |
| Required parameters | Item identifier, period start and end, price field | Missing any one may stop the model from calling; compare whether the actual request contains all three |
| Tool connections | Connect only the price tag query and the daily report query | Few tools aid debugging; compare whether the call record involves only these two |
| Tool call termination | Attach the termination node after the daily report query | Ends this call without triggering AI summary; compare whether further calls still occur |
| Custom variable | Add a "member type" variable description | The price tag distinguishes member and non-member; compare whether the call passes this variable |
| Retrieval scope | Limit to the price tag and daily report libraries | Corresponds to the compared fields; compare whether returned results come from these two sources |
Three common errors
- Treating "all settled at 9.9 yuan" in the draft sentence as already verified. The price tag text gives only the member price of 9.9 yuan and does not state the actual settlement price of each transaction. Divide the report's received amount of 118.8 yuan by 12 transactions and compare whether the result equals 9.9 yuan. If it does not, the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating a tool call's returned retrieval result as authorization or as completed execution. Retrieval supplies material awaiting verification, and form collection records input values only. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization need separate system implementations. Without that implementation, the comparison conclusion remains pending verification.
- Merging the promotional price tag validity period with a supply period. The price tag text states only 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 and says nothing about a supply period. Keep the same field during comparison, and record a field not stated as unknown rather than supplying a term.
How to verify the setup
- Input the price tag text, point rule text, daily report data, and draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the draft sentence's "all settled at 9.9 yuan" against the report's received amount of 118.8 yuan divided by 12 transactions. If the result equals 9.9 yuan, the draft sentence is consistent with the report; if it does not, the draft sentence is not supported. The expected outcome is a conclusion after per-transaction comparison, with no claim that testing occurred.
- Input the same item identifier and period, and compare whether the actual tool call request contains the three required parameters: item identifier, period start and end, and price field. If any is missing, record the parameters as incomplete and note that the model may not call; if all three are present, proceed to the next comparison. The expected outcome is observation of the request content, without guaranteeing a successful call.
- Input an empty result
[]and compare whether the downstream design treats the empty result as no match, rather than reading it as authorization approval or completed business. If downstream records the empty result as pending verification, this matches the expectation; if downstream records it as verified, log a design gap. The expected outcome is a paper review of the downstream branch, without claiming that a fictional rule search necessarily returns empty.