sanctions

The two tools are functionally distinct: get_sanctionrail_info provides product/pricing details, while screen_name performs the actual sanctions lookup. However, the info tool's description also mentions fuzzy-match screening and 'check a counterparty,' which could briefly mislead an agent into thinking it performs screening. With only two tools, the risk is modest but real.

Both names use lowercase verb_noun style and are readable, but they are not strongly parallel: get_sanctionrail_info is a get_<product>_info meta-tool, while screen_name is a direct verb+object action. The naming is predictable enough with only two tools, though a clearer pattern would have made the relationship between them more obvious.

Two tools is on the low side of the typical range, but it is defensible for a narrowly scoped sanctions-screening server: one operational tool plus one informational setup tool. It does not feel bloated, and the small count is appropriate for the apparent single-purpose domain.

The server covers the primary workflow—screening a counterparty name before a transaction, onboarding, or payment approval—end to end in a single call. It lacks conveniences such as batch screening or a separate entity-detail lookup, but agents can achieve the core task with repeated screen_name calls. These are minor gaps rather than dead ends.