When aggregator documentation disagrees: verify before trading

Conflicting official documentation should narrow your claim, not encourage choosing the most attractive sentence. First identify whether the pages describe the same product, version, endpoint, interface and time period.

Three live examples

Checked September 24, 2026, the KyberSwap overview says its public APIs require no API key. Its EVM swap gateway notice instructs callers to send an API key to the new gateway and says the old base remains available with limits. The accurate conclusion is endpoint-specific: new gateway access requires a key; a blanket claim about all KyberSwap APIs would overreach.

LI.FI Standard advertises up to 200 requests per minute, while its rate-limit reference gives new keys a 100 RPM default. A plan ceiling and an initial allocation can differ. Record the account’s assigned allowance before budgeting traffic.

The OKX FAQ includes a general no-platform-fee statement, while its dedicated fee schedule specifies token-group charges. For the fee question, use the detailed current schedule and confirmation, while openly noting the broader page’s conflicting wording.

A resolution sequence

1. Save both URLs and their retrieval date.
2. Check product and version scope before treating the statements as contradictory.
3. Prefer an explicit endpoint or fee specification over a broad marketing sentence for that narrow issue.
4. If uncertainty remains, obtain provider confirmation before depending on the disputed term.

A quote can establish what is offered to the account at that moment; it cannot silently rewrite an agreement about quotas or access. Conversely, a historical contract deployment does not establish that a hosted service is still active.

Do not average incompatible fee figures or fill a missing price with a third-party estimate. Publish what the evidence establishes and label what remains unresolved. That keeps a comparison useful while making later updates straightforward.