What the documents look like
Multi-store contract and transaction materials sit across merchant back ends, ERP channel pricing, brand anti-counterfeiting systems, and dealer reports. Cross-store authorization and price order are the review focus, so the working set is the store authorization list, the price control table, the diversion complaint form, and the monthly sales report. The supplied brief gives daily and monthly update frequencies; this page does not derive batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time behavior, or transaction-triggered behavior from those frequencies.
Contract and transaction material comparison requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field placed side by side. Tool calls and plugins carry the role of linking material text, parameters, and downstream nodes. A store authorization list typically states the authorized party, authorized stores, authorization period, and authorized scope. A price control table typically states a suggested retail price per store per series. Neither document by itself establishes an actual transaction price, an actual transaction date, or the period over which the price control table applies.
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. Parameters carry two key values: the parameter introduction and whether the parameter is required. The model combines the tool introduction, the parameter introductions, and required status to decide whether to call the tool.
For a tool with no parameters, the model decides from the tool introduction alone. For a tool with parameters: when no parameter is required, the tool can be called even when the context holds no suitable parameter, and the model sometimes fabricates a parameter; when a parameter is required and no suitable value exists, the model may not call the tool, and prompts can guide the user to supply the parameter. In advanced orchestration, connecting an available tool to the tool call module automatically separates tool input from ordinary input, and the introduction can be edited to make the call timing more precise. The documentation advises against adding too many tools at once, recommending a small set tuned first before further attempts.
By default the tool call node returns the tool run result to the AI for a summarizing output. The tool call termination node can be attached after a tool; when the workflow reaches it, the current tool call ends, no other tool is called, and the AI does not answer based on the tool call result. Custom variables extend tool variable input, so nodes not treated as tool parameters, or nodes that cannot be tool-called, can be called accordingly.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A brand e-commerce lead holds a store authorization list whose text reads: "Authorized party: East China dealer A; authorized stores: Platform Jia store, Platform Yi store; authorization period: 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025; authorized scope: sale of Brand X series products." A price control table reads: "Platform Jia store Brand X series suggested retail price 199 yuan; Platform Yi store Brand X series suggested retail price 199 yuan." A draft sentence for review reads: "Dealer A's Brand X series selling price at Platform Yi store is below the suggested retail price, constituting a price violation." The sentence states no actual transaction price, no transaction date, and no applicable period for the price control table. It is unsupported and cannot be judged as a contradiction or a negation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and the primary task, tied to the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper exercise and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State "compare subject, object, period, and field between the authorization list and the price control table" | The introduction states the purpose and the situations where the tool should not be called; compare against the sample material fields |
| Required tool parameters | Set authorized party, authorized stores, and authorization period as required parameters | When a suitable required parameter is missing the model may not call the tool; complete interactively, then inspect the actual request |
| Number of connected tools | Connect two tools first: authorization list check and price control table check | The documentation advises tuning a small set before adding more; compare against later call records |
| Tool call termination position | Attach after the price field comparison node | After termination no other tool and no AI summary run; check whether this call ended |
| Custom tool variable | Add a parameter description for the monthly sales report node | Lets a node not treated as a tool parameter be called; check whether the variable is passed in |
| Retrieval scope check | Confirm the sample materials fall within an accessible target retrieval scope | When missing, record the evidence gap; retrieval is not treated as authorization execution |
Three common errors
- Treating a tool parameter introduction as an execution guarantee. The sample price control table states only a suggested retail price of 199 yuan and no actual transaction price. Judging a price violation from that alone treats a parameter description as a factual conclusion. The check is whether an actual transaction price field exists.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. The sample authorization list states an authorization period ending 31 December 2025. Treating Platform Yi store as currently authorized because the list was retrieved ignores the period field and confuses retrieval with authorization status.
- Treating tool call termination as business termination. The termination node ends only this tool call and the AI summary. It does not mean a contract ended, an authorization was revoked, or an approval completed. The sample draft sentence concerns a price violation judgment, and the termination node does not produce that judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample store authorization list text and the draft sentence "Dealer A's Brand X series selling price at Platform Yi store is below the suggested retail price, constituting a price violation." Compare whether the draft sentence states an actual transaction price, a transaction date, and an applicable period for the price control table. If all three are absent from the materials, the expected result is unsupported and the evidence gap is recorded. If an actual transaction price field appears and its value is below 199 yuan, proceed to check whether subject and period match.
- Input the sample price control table text and a tool call request. Compare whether the authorized party, authorized stores, and authorization period in the request match the list text. If the request states the authorization period as 2026 while the list text states 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, the expected result is a period mismatch and the request is excluded. If period and stores match, the expected result is a field match, and the price field can be checked next.
- Input a handover request that states no authorized party. Compare whether the request contains the required parameter authorized party. If missing, the expected result is that the model may not call the tool, and the parameter is completed interactively before inspecting the actual request. If the completed authorized party matches the list text, the expected result is that the parameter is satisfied and the comparison node after the tool connection is entered. All of the above are paper expectations and were not actually run.