What the documents look like
General-trade import declaration work centres on the customs value, freight and insurance, and payment of duties and taxes. The main data sources are the International Trade Single Window, the customs tariff, the freight forwarder's arrival notice, and foreign-exchange payment documents. The documents handled per entry are the import declaration form, the commercial invoice, the packing list, the bill of lading, and the contract. Data updates on a per-entry basis.
For operating reports and exception review, these per-entry materials must be consolidated into records that can be checked against one another. The tool call and plugin layer takes the declaration form, invoice, packing list, bill of lading, and contract as inputs, converts them into structured fields, and triggers downstream checking steps. A tool description tells the model what the tool is for. Tool parameters are fixed for system modules and configurable for plugins. When a required parameter is missing, the model may not call the tool. These characteristics directly determine whether report fields can be collected consistently.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Tool calling lets the model decide from context whether a tool should run. A tool without parameters is judged solely on its description. For a tool with parameters, a missing required parameter may stop the call, and prompts can guide the user to supply the value. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the documented guidance is to start with a small number of tools and tune before expanding.
The tool call termination node ends the current call: no further tools run, and the AI does not summarise the tool results. Retrieval and similarity scores do not act as permission or entity filters. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers and exclude non-matching records. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronisation each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Importer A engaged customs broker B on 10 March 2025 to submit an import declaration for one general-trade consignment, accompanied by a commercial invoice, packing list, bill of lading, and contract; the terms of trade are CIF, and freight and insurance are stated on the invoice." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The freight and insurance fields on this declaration were filled automatically by the tool call and can be cited directly in exception review." This sample is for paper checking only and does not represent a real customer or an actual test.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State the purpose, input conditions, and situations where the tool should not be called | Used to judge whether the declaration-field extraction tool should be called |
| Tool parameters | System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable | Check whether the freight and insurance fields come from the invoice or the bill of lading |
| Required parameters | With no suitable required parameter, the model may not call the tool | If the invoice number is absent, the extraction tool may not run |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect available tools to the tool call module | Determines whether the invoice and packing list tools join the same flow |
| Tool call termination | Ends the current call and stops AI summarisation | Used in exception review to block extra summary output |
| Custom tool variables | Extend inputs for nodes not treated as tool parameters | Used to bring the contract date into the checking scope |
For this exercise, the starting point is set at one tool call. The reason is that the sample contains a single declaration, and comparing against a multi-declaration batch shows whether one call is enough for the checking need. This is a hypothetical starting value for the exercise, not a documented default.
Three common errors
- Treating the tool description as a guarantee of execution. The description only states the purpose; the model may still decline to call the tool when a required parameter is missing. Compare the description against the actual request record.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorisation. A similarity score does not perform permission or entity separation. A retrieved match does not mean the declaration has been approved for submission or that duties have been paid.
- Treating a pending-review state as a completed action. If the draft sentence's claim that fields were "filled automatically" has no corresponding request record, the claim remains unverified.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source material and the draft sentence. Compare whether a tool call actually occurred and whether the freight and insurance values trace to the invoice text. The condition is met only when a field value matching the invoice appears.
- Input comparable material with the invoice number missing. Compare whether the model declines to call the tool because a required parameter is absent. The condition is met only when no call is observed and a prompt to supply the parameter appears.
- Input a flow with the tool call termination node connected. Compare whether AI summary output still appears. The condition is met only when no summary is produced and no further tools are called.
These checks describe expected observations for paper review. They do not report a completed test, an approval, or a deployment. Where the sample lacks a request record, an invoice number, or a termination-node observation, that evidence remains missing and the corresponding claim stays unverified.