What the documents look like
Cross-border platform settlement and foreign exchange work covers the collection of funds from completed orders. It does not handle fraud chargebacks. The working materials are platform settlement statements, exchange rate tables, service fee invoices and receipt reconciliation sheets, refreshed weekly or monthly. Contract and transaction material comparison requires that the same entity, the same period and the same field either corroborate each other or stand in clear mutual exclusion.
Platform settlement statements record deduction amounts and settlement periods. Exchange rate tables record the rates used for conversion. Service fee invoices record fee names and amounts. Receipt reconciliation sheets record amounts actually credited. These materials come from the platform settlement centre, bank statements, payment institution back offices and ERP orders, so field naming and time conventions can differ between sources. The role of tool calls and plugins at this step is to connect material content and comparison rules into a workflow, let the model decide whether to call the relevant tool, and then summarise or terminate the result.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool introduction states the tool's purpose, its input conditions and the situations in which it should not be called. The model decides whether to call a tool from the introduction, the parameter introductions and whether parameters are marked required. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and debugging with a small number of tools first is advised. The tool call termination node ends that tool call: no further tools are called, and the AI is no longer asked to summarise the tool results.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Material text one, a platform settlement statement: "Settlement period March 2025, total deductions RMB 1,200, order numbers A001 to A050." Material text two, a service fee invoice: "Invoice date 20 March 2025, service fee RMB 1,200, corresponding order numbers A001 to A050." Material text three, a receipt reconciliation sheet: "March 2025 credited amount RMB 9,800, remark: deduction 1,200." Draft sentence to be assessed: "The service fee for the month matches the deduction on the settlement statement, the credited amount on the reconciliation sheet has already had this fee deducted, and the three can corroborate one another."
Comparison requires the same entity, the same period and the same field. The settlement statement deduction and the service fee invoice amount are both RMB 1,200 with the same order range, so that part is supported. The reconciliation sheet remark of a 1,200 deduction is the same field with the same value as the settlement statement deduction, so that part is supported. Whether the credited amount of RMB 9,800 equals total order value minus deductions cannot be checked: the materials do not state total order value. That part remains to be verified. The draft sentence's claim that the three corroborate one another does not hold for the credited amount, because the total order value evidence is absent.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration here concerns the material comparison task on this page. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, used for comparison, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State the material scope for comparison and the situations where the tool should not be called | The introduction affects when the model calls the tool; compare it with the fields the draft sentence needs |
| Required parameters | Entity, period, field name | When suitable required parameters are absent the model may not call the tool; check the actual request |
| Tool connection | Connect the settlement statement and invoice comparison tool first | Debug with few tools, observe call results, then extend |
| Tool call termination | Attach the termination node after comparison completes | After termination the AI no longer summarises; check whether output keeps the original result |
| Custom tool variable | Add a parameter description for the reconciliation sheet node | Extends variable input; check whether the node is called |
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter introduction as a guarantee of execution. A parameter introduction only describes what the parameter means. Whether the model calls the tool, and whether the call succeeds, requires checking the actual request and returned result. In the hypothetical exercise, assuming the comparison has run because the parameter introduction mentions "amount" leaves the actual call record unchecked.
- Treating something pending review or pending verification as confirmed. The draft sentence lacks total order value evidence for the credited amount, so that part is pending verification and cannot be written as three-way corroboration. Fields the materials do not state remain unknown.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorised execution. Tool calls can retrieve materials or collect parameters; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation each need their own downstream implementation. In the hypothetical exercise, a comparison result does not constitute payment or crediting authorisation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three material texts and the draft sentence from the hypothetical exercise, then compare each clause of the draft sentence against the materials for the same entity, same period and same field. The settlement statement deduction and the service fee invoice amount are both RMB 1,200 with the same order range, so that clause is supported. The credited amount clause is pending verification because total order value is absent, so the mutual corroboration condition is not met.
- Input "credited amount RMB 9,800" and "deduction 1,200" from the hypothetical exercise, and compare whether a total order value field exists. The materials do not state total order value, so the observable result is that whether the credited amount equals total order value minus deductions cannot be calculated. Record this as an evidence gap.
- Input the comparison request from the hypothetical exercise and check whether, once the tool call termination node is attached, the output keeps the original comparison result and no AI summary appears. If the output still contains an AI summary, the observable result is that the termination node did not take effect, and the connection position needs checking.