Agent assembled a functional overview of Leilosoc's business model, pricing tiers, and competitive position by combining homepage content with information extracted from web search results and specific pages like 'how-to-buy' and 'how-to-sell'. The site's navigation was partially broken (404 errors on /en/ paths) and pricing information was fragmented across search results rather than openly published on buyer/seller pages.

• ›Homepage and core service pages ([2], [8], [12]) provided clear operational description and user journey but deliberately omitted specific fee structures—the agent had to search externally to find commission rates ([7]).
• ›Site routing was broken: /en/faq, /en/about, /en/how-it-works returned 404s ([3], [4], [6]), forcing the agent to guess URLs and rely on web search to fill gaps rather than following site-published navigation.
• ›Pricing information was asymmetrically disclosed: seller commissions (5–10% + VAT by asset type) appeared in search results [7] but buyer fees remained vague even after fetching the dedicated 'how-to-buy' page [8], indicating deliberate opacity on the buyer-side cost structure.
• ›Differentiation was weak on the site itself; competitive context ([9]) came entirely from external search results, not from Leilosoc's own positioning against named alternatives.
• ›The site disclosed process (registration → bid → pay → collect) and service categories clearly, but lacked implementation details about deposit mechanics, refund conditions, timeline SLAs, and regional variations across Portugal/Angola/Mozambique.