你刚刷到这条消息，本来准备顺手划走，但又怕自己错过了真正会影响下一步判断的那一点。
最容易做错的，是KnockOutEZ / wigolo；代价往往是如果只盯表面热闹，你很容易在错误方向上花掉时间、预算和注意力。；我先给一个保守判断：把Agent上网成本打平，才是产品力。
That is the trap with KnockOutEZ / wigolo. The easy read is '18 engines.' The more useful read is cost structure. If you only chase the feature list, you can waste time, budget, and attention in the wrong direction. My conservative take: flattening the cost of agent web access is the product.
The public site does not just brag about coverage. It says 'API key/account: none' and 'Cost per query: $0.' The README pushes the same point with 'no API keys, no cloud, no metered bill.' That sounds less like a pure search-quality pitch and more like a claim about what happens to your cost base when AI tools start making follow-up searches on their own.
The tools docs make the real bet even clearer: 'cache first.' In plain English, repeated checks, retries, and follow-up questions are supposed to turn into local lookups instead of another billed request. That is why I think the 18 engines are the storefront, not the product.
Do not judge an update by how many features it lists. Judge it by whether it changes your next decision. In AI 工作流程（工作流程（workflow）s）, a tool becomes the default when the second and third query stop feeling expensive.
Boundary: this is based only on the public README, site, and tools docs, not a live production benchmark. If you know someone choosing web access for agents right now, share this with them: the real question is not 'does it search better once?
真正该讨论的是：KnockOutEZ / wigolo