The agent successfully assembled a comprehensive overview of Idomoo's core offering, target market, and pricing model from the site's public pages, then supplemented with competitive context from web search. The site was moderately navigable: it published core positioning clearly on the homepage and solutions page, but pricing remained deliberately opaque (requiring a quote form), and several navigation paths returned 404s.

• ›Step [1] (homepage) was the primary content source: it clearly stated what Idomoo does (personalized video generation via Lucas), who it serves (enterprises), key claims, and client list. This single fetch provided the foundation for most of the final answer.
• ›Step [2] (pricing page) confirmed that Idomoo intentionally withholds pricing from the public site—no rates, tiers, or reference numbers are published. The agent correctly attributed this as an opaque model requiring direct sales engagement, not a failure to find information.
• ›Step [4] (solutions page) added essential context on use cases (onboarding, churn reduction, bill explanation, etc.) and reinforced the three core differentiators (embedded personalization, no templates, real-time rendering). These claims came directly from the site, not inferred.
• ›Step [5] (web search for competitors) was necessary because the site itself does not position against competitors—it makes no mention of Synthesia, Maverick, Vidyard, or others. The agent used search results to fulfill the 'how it's different from alternatives' part of the task, which the site alone could not answer.
• ›Steps [3] and [6] returned 404s (/features, /how-it-works), indicating either removed pages or broken navigation. The agent did not halt—it had already gathered sufficient information from the homepage and solutions pages, suggesting the site's core content is concentrated in a few landing pages rather than deep docs.