What the documents look like
Fresh-food concession counters in hypermarkets are frequently run by on-site supplier staff with revenue sharing, so contract terms and daily transaction materials must be matched item by item. The main data sources are the POS system, supplier delivery notes, food-safety ledgers and store stock counts. Everyday documents include the concession contract, daily sales reports, loss sheets and food purchase inspection records. The most time-consuming steps are reconciling weighed sales, handling loss allocation and checking purchase certificates. These materials update daily or per batch, and the comparison task has to proceed on the same business entity, the same period and the same field. Tool calls and plugins bring contract clauses, report values and ledger records into one checking flow.
For this page the relevant characteristics are the split operation between the hypermarket fresh department and the on-site supplier, the revenue-sharing settlement basis, and the fact that contract wording and daily transaction documents come from different hands. A comparison therefore depends on contract text and transaction text being supplied together. Where a clause is not present in the contract, no settlement conclusion can be drawn from the transaction material alone.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool is for, and it needs to state the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called. System module parameters are already fixed, while plugin parameters are configurable. The parameter description and whether a parameter is required together affect whether the model issues the call. When a suitable required parameter is missing, the model may not call the tool, and interaction is needed to complete the parameter before the actual request is checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and a small number of tools should be tuned first. The tool call termination node ends the current call, stops further tool calls and stops the AI from summarising tool results.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a hypermarket fresh department and one concession supplier sign a counter operating contract. The contract text states: "Party B operates leafy vegetables at counter 3, settled at eighteen percent of the tax-inclusive sales amount in the daily sales report, with a settlement period of the calendar month." A daily sales report states: "Counter 3 leafy vegetables, tax-inclusive sales for the day four thousand two hundred yuan, loss sheet number LS-0417, loss amount one hundred twenty-six yuan." A draft sentence awaiting judgment reads: "This month counter 3 leafy vegetables are settled under the contract, and the loss has already been deducted from the sales amount." This draft sentence must be checked against whether the contract states a loss deduction method. The exercise does not provide that clause, so whether the loss has been deducted is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check for this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the tool compares contract clauses with transaction material fields, and that no settlement conclusion is output when a contract clause is missing | The draft sentence concerns loss deduction, so the description must limit output when no clause basis exists |
| Tool parameters | Plugin parameters carry contract entity, counter number, period, field name and material source | The exercise entity, counter 3, calendar month, tax-inclusive sales amount and loss amount are parameter values |
| Required parameters | Set the contract clause text and the transaction material text as required parameters, so no settlement comparison is issued when they are missing | The exercise does not provide a loss deduction clause, which is a missing required parameter |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect the contract comparison tool and the report comparison tool to the tool call module, tuning a small number of tools first | The exercise involves only two material types, the contract and the daily sales report |
| Tool call termination | Attach the termination node after contract clause comparison, ending the call and skipping AI summarisation | The draft sentence should stop at the comparison step when the clause is missing |
| Custom tool variables | Add a variable description for the loss sheet field so the tool call can enter the workflow after the loss sheet | The exercise loss sheet number and amount can serve as variable inputs |
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter description as a guarantee of execution. The plugin parameters in the exercise already carry the contract entity and counter number. Concluding from this that the model will certainly issue the call and output a settlement conclusion ignores the documented situation where a required parameter is missing and the model may not call the tool. The check inputs the draft sentence and the two material texts, compares whether the actual model request contains the loss deduction clause, and observes whether the request is issued and whether a settlement conclusion appears.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorisation or as a basis for effect. The exercise contract text states only the operating category, the settlement percentage and the settlement period, and does not state a loss deduction method. Retrieving that contract does not support the statement that the loss has already been deducted from the sales amount. The check inputs the contract text and the draft sentence, compares the deduction method described in the draft against the fields recorded in the contract, and observes whether the contract contains that field.
- Treating tool call termination as business termination. The termination node ends the current tool call and does not end the contract relationship or the settlement process. The check inputs the exercise contract and report, compares outputs before and after the termination node is attached, and observes whether AI summary content still appears after termination.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence "This month counter 3 leafy vegetables are settled under the contract, and the loss has already been deducted from the sales amount", input the contract text and the daily sales report text, compare whether the contract states a loss deduction method, and where the contract does not state that field, record the draft sentence as unsupported and note the evidence gap.
- For the missing required parameter situation, input the exercise contract text, report text and draft sentence, compare the parameter set in the actual tool request against the required parameter list, and where the request does not contain the loss deduction clause parameter, record that the model may not call the tool and that interaction is needed to complete the parameter before checking the actual request.
- For the tool call termination node, input an orchestration in which the contract comparison tool and the report comparison tool are connected, compare outputs before and after the termination node is attached, and where no AI summary content appears after termination and no further tool is called, record that the termination node behaves as documented. All of the above is paper checking, with no claim that testing or deployment has occurred.