Agent successfully gathered core information about Mojo's positioning, pricing, and security from three well-linked pages on the site. However, the site left key details ambiguous—access permissions, trial terms, automation unit definitions, and proof of competitive claims—requiring the agent to acknowledge gaps rather than fill them.

• ›Homepage and /pricing pages were discoverable via direct memory (typed URL) and site navigation, and both returned complete, structured information. The agent did not rely on search or model memory for core facts.
• ›Access level (read vs. write) is genuinely inconsistent between homepage and /security page, and the site defers to email contact for clarification. This is not an agent gap—it's a site transparency issue.
• ›Pricing is simple and explicitly stated ($0 Free, $200/month Plus, custom on request) but lacks post-intro pricing, trial length, and definition of 'automation' units, making value comparison difficult.
• ›The site makes no competitive pricing comparison and provides only one testimonial (vs. Claude Code) as proof. The '20+ years' expertise claim lacks attribution or evidence.
• ›Agent correctly identified what it did not fetch (/about, /docs, /solutions pages) and flagged them as potential sources for missing context, showing appropriate epistemic humility rather than confabulation.