The agent assembled a comprehensive explanation of Xoom's business model, pricing, and competitive positioning by relying almost entirely on web search results and prior knowledge, since the xoom.com site itself was largely inaccessible (pricing pages redirected to login, JavaScript-heavy, no public pricing tables). The agent satisfied the discovery-evaluation task despite heavy friction from the site's architecture, working around missing direct content by triangulating across third-party comparisons, help docs, and PayPal press releases.

• ›Steps [4], [6], [8], [11], [12] were all web searches that returned third-party comparison articles, Wikipedia, and review sites—not xoom.com itself. These searches supplied the bulk of the final answer (fees, supported countries, delivery methods, competitive differentiation).
• ›Direct xoom.com fetches ([1], [3], [7], [9], [10]) either returned truncated/inaccessible content (homepage), sign-in screens (pricing page [3] returned 'Sign In' title), or 404 errors ([5]). The site's React-based architecture and authentication walls prevented the agent from scraping public product information.
• ›The agent explicitly called out what it could not find on-site: real-time pricing opacity, bill payment costs, account fee details, and feature parity between app and web. It relied on cited third-party sources (Wise comparison, Xoom review sites, Xoom's own help center) to fill these gaps, indicating the site does not self-serve this information to unauthenticated visitors.
• ›Prior knowledge contributed 43% of fetch sourcing (e.g., guessing /en/why-xoom, /about, help.xoom.com), suggesting the agent had to rely on known Xoom facts rather than site-driven discovery of structure.