The agent successfully gathered comprehensive information about OpusClip by combining direct site fetches with external third-party reviews and comparisons. The opus.pro site itself provided core positioning and pricing pages, but the agent relied heavily on external sources (eesel.ai, ssemble.com, riverside.com) to construct pricing details, feature differentiation, and competitive positioning—indicating the site does not surface complete, machine-readable answers on its own pages. The agent delivered a thorough, well-sourced answer covering what OpusClip does, who it serves, pricing structure with important caveats, and competitive differentiation.

• ›Step [1] (homepage) and [2] (pricing page) were fetched directly but returned truncated HTML responses; the agent could not extract detailed pricing tables or feature matrices from opus.pro's own pages, forcing reliance on third-party aggregators.
• ›Step [4] (about page) provided positioning and audience signals but was also truncated; steps [5], [6], and [8] (third-party review sites and pricing aggregators) contained the actionable pricing details, feature breakdowns, and competitive comparisons that the agent cited in its sources.
• ›Step [10] (targeted search for AI B-roll and scheduler features) surfaced OpusClip's own blog post announcing the Pro plan; this was explicitly cited, showing the agent had to search to find OpusClip's own feature announcements rather than discovering them via clear navigation from the homepage.
• ›The agent identified and flagged critical gaps: credit expiration policies, feature-tier differences, and lack of direct competitor comparison tables on the site itself—indicating opus.pro does not publish these details in easily discoverable, machine-readable form.
• ›57% of fetches came from web search, 29% from prior knowledge, and only 14% from previous artifacts, showing the site's own pages were insufficient; the agent had to construct the answer by synthesizing external sources with guessed site fetches.