What the documents look like
Cross-border platform settlement and foreign exchange work covers the collection of funds from orders that have already been completed. The records involved are platform settlement statements, bank transaction records, payment institution back-office records and ERP orders. The working documents are platform settlement statements, exchange rate tables, service fee invoices and receipt reconciliation tables, updated weekly or monthly. Operating reporting and exception review require that deductions, exchange rate differences and service fees from the same settlement period be placed on fields that can be checked against each other. Tool calls and plug-ins carry document fields into model decisions and trigger later nodes. The deduction detail in a settlement statement and the time range of an exchange rate table determine whether tool parameters have usable input conditions.
Two features of this category shape the task. First, the settlement statement and the receipt reconciliation table are separate documents with separate dates, so a field that is complete in one does not make the matching field complete in the other. Second, a settlement period and a bank posting date are different pieces of information; they can be compared, but neither one replaces the other. These two facts drive the constraints below.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool is for. It needs to state the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called. Tool parameters divide into fixed parameters for system modules and configurable parameters for plug-ins. A parameter description is not a guarantee of execution. Where a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may not call the tool; the gap is closed through interaction and the actual request is then checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the guidance is to tune a small number of tools before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current tool call; it does not call other tools and does not call the AI to summarise tool results. Retrieval and similarity scores do not carry permission or entity isolation duties, and libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the following is paper material, not a real record. Material one, a cross-border seller's finance record in the March 2025 settlement statement: "Platform settlement period 2025-03-01 to 2025-03-31; total deductions are listed in the settlement statement detail; the exchange rate uses the 2025-03-31 mid-rate in the settlement statement appendix." Material two, the receipt reconciliation table for the same month: "Bank credit posted 2025-04-02; the amount matches the settlement statement net amount; the service fee invoice number is still to be supplied." Draft sentence to be judged: "For this settlement period the deductions and the exchange rate have both been checked and confirmed, and service fee collection is complete." The draft sentence merges three statuses, deductions, exchange rate and service fee, into one statement. Material two states that the service fee invoice number is still to be supplied, so the claim that service fee collection is complete has no support.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the input is the settlement statement and exchange rate table fields; state that collection completion is not to be output when the service fee invoice is absent | Material two, service fee invoice number still to be supplied |
| Tool parameters | Check the settlement period and currency fields among the plug-in configurable parameters | Material one, settlement period 2025-03-01 to 2025-03-31 |
| Required parameters | Where a required parameter is missing, complete it through interaction and check the actual request | The service fee invoice number is the missing item in the sample |
| Tool connection | Connect the settlement statement parsing tool and the exchange rate comparison tool to the tool call module; tune a small number of tools first | The main task on this page is operating reporting and exception review |
| Tool call termination | Attach the termination node after the exchange rate comparison, so the AI does not summarise the tool result | The sample exchange rate uses the 2025-03-31 mid-rate |
| Custom tool variable | Add a variable description for the service fee invoice node so that it can be called | The service fee invoice number is still to be supplied in the sample |
Hypothetical starting value for the exercise: set the settlement period parameter to 2025-03-01 to 2025-03-31. The reason for this choice is the settlement period in material one. The comparison object is the posting date 2025-04-02 in the receipt reconciliation table, used to observe whether the period field and the posting date fall inside the same checking range. This is a starting value for this paper exercise, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a tool parameter description as a guarantee of execution. Material one states that the exchange rate uses the 2025-03-31 mid-rate. If the tool parameter carries only the currency and not the date, the model may fabricate a date parameter, so the date value in the actual request needs to be checked. The check is: input the tool parameter set and the resulting request; compare the date value in the request against 2025-03-31; the observable result is that the two agree and no fabricated date appears.
- Treating a pending item as complete. Material two states that the service fee invoice number is still to be supplied, while the draft sentence states that service fee collection is complete. These are mutually exclusive values on the same field, so the draft claim is unsupported. The check is: input material two and the draft sentence; compare the service fee status in each; the observable result is that the status is identified as pending and that part of the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorisation. Retrieving a settlement statement does not mean the operator holds collection authority. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization need their stated downstream implementation. The check is: input a retrieval result and a proposed business action; compare the action against the documented downstream implementation; the observable result is that the action is recorded as not yet implemented rather than executed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the text of material one and material two, and compare the draft sentence "service fee collection is complete" against material two's "service fee invoice number is still to be supplied". The condition is met when the service fee status is identified as pending and that part of the draft sentence is judged unsupported. This is an expected result for the paper exercise, not a completed test.
- Input the settlement period field from material one and compare the date parameter in the actual tool request against 2025-03-01 to 2025-03-31. The condition is met when the request date agrees with the settlement statement period and no fabricated date appears.
- Input the posting date 2025-04-02 from material two and compare its period relation against the settlement period end 2025-03-31. The condition is met when the two are recorded as not belonging to the same period and retained as pending verification, without being judged as a contradiction or a denial.
Where a material field is not provided, the value remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. A similarity score does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorised records, and retrieval does not grant authorisation.