The agent successfully assembled a comprehensive explanation of Recurly's business, target market, pricing model, and competitive positioning—but had to work around the site's heavy JavaScript rendering and opaque pricing pages by relying almost entirely on web search results rather than Recurly's own content. The website itself proved largely inaccessible to content extraction; the agent retrieved only boilerplate HTML from direct page fetches and extracted real answers from third-party review sites and search snippets.

• ›Direct fetches of recurly.com (steps [1], [2], [5], [7], [8], [14]) returned only Next.js framework HTML with no rendered content—the agent could not extract feature details, pricing tiers, or differentiators from Recurly's own pages.
• ›All substantive answers came from web search results (steps [11], [12], [13], [15]): the agent found what Recurly does from SaaS/government solution pages via search snippet, pricing model (0.9–1.5% MRR) from third-party pricing review sites, and competitor comparisons from dedicated comparison articles. Recurly's own site had no public vs. competitors page or transparent pricing breakdown.
• ›The agent explicitly noted in its final answer that Recurly's pricing is 'opaque' and requires contacting sales—this is a direct finding that pricing information is intentionally gated, not a limitation of the agent's retrieval. The site's FAQ and pricing pages exist but do not surface detailed plan features or cost tiers.
• ›The agent's final answer cited only search result URLs and Recurly's homepage/solutions pages in its sources—indicating that even the 'content-bearing' Recurly URLs ([1], [2]) were cited as sources but contributed minimal actual content beyond positioning language.