Affiliate Disclosure: We may earn a commission from qualifying purchases made through affiliate links, at no extra cost to you.
Supported API Actions
The API currently supports checking quota, returning processed text with spintax, generating a unique variation, and generating a variation from existing spintax. Requests use HTTP POST and responses are returned as JSON.
Current Limits
Documentation currently states a limit of 500 API requests per day for standard access and recommends spacing new-text processing requests at least seven seconds apart.
Protected Terms And Confidence
The API can protect specified terms and exposes a confidence setting. Those controls matter when names, brands, technical phrases, or other exact wording must remain intact.
When An API Makes Sense
An API is useful when rewriting is one step inside a repeatable software workflow. If you only rewrite occasionally, the web interface is usually simpler.
Response And Error Handling
Responses are documented as JSON with a status plus response text, quota counts, and optional information such as protected terms and confidence level. Integrations should handle errors and quota exhaustion explicitly rather than assuming every request succeeds.
Additional Parameters
Current documentation includes options related to paragraph/list reordering, AI-assisted “humanize” functions, HTML markup, line breaks, and multiple spintax formats. These are provider-described options; test them against your own output requirements before enabling them automatically.
How We Evaluate API
Our evaluation starts with real source material rather than a prepared marketing example. We look at what happens to factual statements, proper nouns, numbers, technical terms, sentence relationships, and tone after rewriting. We also pay attention to the amount of manual work required to turn an automated result into something we would actually publish.
That editing burden matters because a rewriting tool is supposed to save time. A result can look impressively different from its source while still creating extra work through vague wording, changed nuance, or substitutions that do not fit the context. For that reason, we treat readability and meaning preservation as more useful signals than raw variation alone.
A Practical Test You Can Run
Choose a 500–1,000 word source that resembles the material you normally work with. Include a few names, numbers, multi-word phrases, and sentences where qualifiers such as “may,” “usually,” or “only” matter. Protect terms that must remain exact, run the rewrite with settings you would realistically use, and then compare the result with the source line by line.
Record the corrections you make. Separate factual corrections from stylistic preferences. If the same type of problem appears repeatedly, change the settings or workflow rather than fixing it manually forever. This gives you a much more useful picture of the software than judging one polished paragraph.
Where Human Review Still Matters
We do not recommend sending rewritten output directly to publication. A final editor should verify factual claims, restore any lost nuance, remove unnatural alternatives, check headings and transitions, and make sure the finished piece still answers the reader’s question. The more consequential the subject, the more rigorous that review should be.
Questions To Ask Before Paying
- Will you use the product often enough for a dedicated rewriting tool to make sense?
- Do you need spintax, bulk processing, mass export, or API access, or only occasional paraphrasing?
- Can the terms that matter to you be protected reliably?
- How much editing do representative outputs require?
- Does the current plan and renewal structure fit the length of time you expect to use it?