What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and liability determination after export. The work draws on customer email, quality inspection reports, customs system records and insurance claim systems. Four document types form the core comparison objects: the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report and the return customs declaration. Materials update irregularly, case by case, with no batch synchronization and no real-time trigger mechanism described in the supplied brief.
In this category the tool call and plugin step links field extraction, clause comparison and evidence checking into a debuggable flow. The model decides whether to call a tool from the tool introduction and the parameter introduction, so the drafting of those introductions directly shapes what gets compared. The four document types carry different roles: the return agreement records the parties, the batch and the reason for return; the claim letter records the claimed amount and the attached inspection report; the quality report carries the inspection findings; the return customs declaration carries the declaration record. Comparison across these materials means aligning subject, batch, date and amount field by field.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool introduction states the purpose of the tool, its input conditions and the situations in which it should not be called. System module parameters are already fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. The parameter introduction and the required flag together influence whether the model calls the tool. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call the tool, and an interactive step can prompt for the missing value. The actual request must still be checked against what was supplied.
In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the guidance is to tune a small number of tools before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current call: it does not call other tools and does not call the AI to summarize the tool result. Retrieval and form collection return values; they do not authorize execution. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization require their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper test case, clearly labelled as constructed for this page and not drawn from real records. Return agreement source text for comparison: "Party A submitted a return for 12 cartons of batch A-0310 on 10 March 2025; the reason for return is outer packaging damage; Party B shall confirm within 15 days of receiving notice." Claim letter source text: "For the above batch A-0310, the claimed amount is RMB 48,000, with inspection report QC-0310-02 attached." Draft sentence to be assessed: "Party B confirmed the return on 12 March 2025 and agreed to pay RMB 48,000." The draft carries a subject, an object, a date and an amount, and each field must be checked against both source texts.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State purpose, input conditions and situations where the tool should not be called | Determines whether the model initiates comparison on the return agreement |
| Tool parameters | System module parameters fixed, plugin parameters configurable | Extract batch number, amount and date fields |
| Required parameters | Mark whether required; the model may not call when a required parameter is absent | Batch number absence requires interactive completion |
| Tool connection | Connect available tools in advanced orchestration | Attach the comparison plugin to the tool call module |
| Tool call termination | Attach after a tool to force the current call to end | After comparison, no further summarization is triggered |
| Custom tool variables | Fill in parameter descriptions to extend input | Supply input for nodes that cannot serve as tool parameters |
Hypothetical starting value for this page's paper exercise: set the tool introduction length to approximately 80 words, chosen because the sample holds only two source materials and a shorter introduction makes the call timing easier to observe; compare against call records produced without an introduction. This is a hypothetical starting value with a stated reason and comparison method, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating the parameter introduction as a guarantee of execution. The parameter introduction only explains what the parameter means; the model may still decline to call when a required parameter is missing, so the actual request must be checked.
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorization. A retrieval hit on the return agreement does not mean Party B has confirmed; approval and database writes need their own downstream implementation.
- Treating a pending review state as confirmed. The draft sentence's "confirmed on 12 March" has no corresponding record in the source texts and remains unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical return agreement source text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft date "12 March 2025" against the source wording "shall confirm within 15 days of receiving notice." The source text records no confirmation date, so the result is unsupported; it is not recorded as a contradiction.
- Input the claim letter source text and the draft sentence. Compare the amount "RMB 48,000" against the source "RMB 48,000." The fields align, so the amount field satisfies the alignment condition. At the same time, check whether the subject and batch number both refer to A-0310.
- Input a request containing only the return agreement, and observe whether the tool call record triggers the comparison plugin. If the required parameter batch number is absent, record the observed behaviour, whether the model does not call or completes the value interactively, without presuming a failure cause.
Across all three checks, an unprovided document field remains unknown. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where the source texts are silent, the evidence gap is preserved rather than filled with an assumed clause.