What the documents look like
Short-video affiliate distribution relies on long-term content exposure and product-link conversion rather than live explanation. Contract and transaction material comparison therefore tends to occur after a video is published and before commission settlement. Selected Alliance, short-video playback data, product transaction data and platform rules form the main sources, and a daily or weekly update rhythm means the comparison point in time affects what can be checked. Across the four document types — short-video scripts, linked-product lists, commission plans and violation feedback — the subject, product identifier, commission rate and authorization status are often spread over separate files. A comparison task first confirms the same subject, the same period and the same field, then judges whether the materials carry mutually exclusive values.
The public brief for this category is marked as broadly accurate rather than verified. Where a document field is not supplied, its content remains unknown. The materials described here are a category, not an actual customer.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool call node decides whether to execute based on the tool description, the tool parameters and which parameters are required. The description tells the model what the tool is for; the parameter description and the required flag affect whether the model can find suitable parameters. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call that tool. For plugins, parameters are configurable; for system modules, parameters are already fixed. In advanced orchestration, connecting an available tool to the tool call module separates tool input from ordinary input and allows the description to be edited so the call timing is more precise. The official guidance recommends tuning a small number of tools before adding more. A tool call termination node ends the current call; no further tools are called and the AI is not asked to summarize the tool results. Custom variables extend tool input so that a node not treated as a tool parameter can be called.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source materials to be checked are three sentences. Sentence one: "Party A is Xinghe Culture and Party B is Dada Commerce; on 1 March 2025 the two signed a Short-video Affiliate Distribution Cooperation Agreement, under which Party B publishes linked-cart videos on the short-video account designated by Party A, and the commission rate is fifteen percent of the transaction amount." Sentence two: "On 10 March 2025 Dada Commerce submitted a commission plan, plan number JY-2025-0310, stating product identifier SP-7788 and a commission rate of twelve percent." Sentence three: "On 12 March 2025 Xinghe Culture replied: the commission rate follows the agreement; plan number JY-2025-0310 is not confirmed for the time being." One draft sentence to be judged: "Dada Commerce and Xinghe Culture have reached agreement on the commission rate for SP-7788, to be executed at fifteen percent." The draft sentence conflicts with the "not confirmed for the time being" status in sentence three and is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the tool compares subject, product identifier and commission rate across the contract and the commission plan | Compare against the three sample sentences to confirm the description covers the required fields |
| Tool parameters | Subject, product identifier, commission rate, plan number | Map one-to-one to the sample fields and check each for required status |
| Required parameters | Subject, product identifier, commission rate | When any is missing the model may not call the tool, so interaction must supply it |
| Tool connections | Connect only the contract comparison tool and the commission plan comparison tool | Tune a small number of tools first rather than adding many at once |
| Tool call termination | Place a termination node after the commission plan comparison | After termination no further tools are called and no AI summary of tool results is produced |
| Custom variable | Violation feedback text as an extended input | This node is not treated as a tool parameter and needs a custom variable description |
Three common errors
- Treating "not confirmed for the time being" as "agreement reached". The input is sentence three and the draft sentence; the comparison object is the status field for the same plan number JY-2025-0310; the observable result is that the draft claims agreement while the source says not confirmed, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Writing the tool description as a permission decision. The input is the tool description text; the comparison object is the authorization status field in the sample materials; the observable result is that the description states no authorization rule yet outputs an authorization conclusion, which is an overreach.
- Treating retrieval similarity as entity isolation. The input is one retrieval request; the comparison object is the subject identifier of returned records; the observable result is that records for a subject other than Xinghe Culture or Dada Commerce are returned, which shows retrieval does not perform permission filtering.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three sample sentences and the draft sentence; compare the commission rate and plan number in the draft against the corresponding fields in the source; the condition is met when the output is unsupported because the draft conflicts with the "not confirmed for the time being" status, and the comparison result matches the source status.
- Input a comparison request missing the product identifier; compare against the required parameter list; the condition is met when the model does not call the tool or completes the product identifier through interaction, so a missing required parameter is not skipped.
- Input a paper input carried by an empty result; compare whether the downstream design handles it as an empty result; the condition is met when the downstream does not treat the empty result as confirmed, so an empty result is not interpreted as authorization or a completed transaction.
A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where a document field is not provided, the value remains unknown.