{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "playht-tts",
    "name": "PlayHT Text-to-Speech API",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/playht-tts",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: PlayHT Text-to-Speech API\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/playht-tts, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade F, 4.2 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on PlayHT Text-to-Speech API: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 0 out of 100, up to 20 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: Retired. On 2026-10-01 api.play.ht didn't resolve, so nothing answers a call. Migration guides put the API going dark around 26 July 2025 and the platform closing on 31 December 2025. No status page (0), no incident record (0), and the historical rate limits describe a service that's gone (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Security \u0026 auth, 0 out of 100, up to 17.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: No live surface. Historically a secret key plus a user ID in two headers, with no scopes. Accounts, audio and clones were reportedly deleted at shutdown with no export. Nothing left to score (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 3. Agent ergonomics, 0 out of 100, up to 16.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: No live surface to call, so every line scores 0.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 4. Payments \u0026 pricing, 0 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: Nothing can be bought. No x402 was ever documented (0), no live pricing (0), no free tier (0), no signup (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 5. Schema \u0026 documentation, 31 out of 100, up to 11.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 31: What's left is the docs, still served at docs.play.ht with pages last modified in September 2025. No OpenAPI file confirmed (0) and we didn't confirm an llms.txt (0). The getting-started and streaming pages state purpose and limits (8 of 20). Typed request fields with engine names and a 20,000-character streaming cap (10 of 15). Response codes and examples on the reference pages (8 of 15). Versioned `/api/v2` path, no changelog found (5 of 15). The pages carry no shutdown notice, so a model reading them would call an API that doesn't exist.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 6. Maintenance \u0026 community, 0 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: No release or changelog entry in the last 90 days or the last year (0). No support channel (0). SDKs abandoned (0). No package health to judge (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 36 out of 100, up to 5.6 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 5, provenance 66.\n\nWhy it scored 36: SDKs remain on GitHub under Apache-2.0, while the terms survive only as Internet Archive copies (5 of 30). No live privacy policy or retention statement, and the deletion of data at shutdown is reported by third parties, not by PlayHT (0 of 30). We found no shutdown notice from PlayHT on the live site or docs today (0 of 20). No sub-processors or data locations (0 of 20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Domain age: play.ht, registered 2016-11-29 (9 years) (11 of 15)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: could not be fetched (0 of 10)\n\n## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- 2026-10-01. docs.play.ht still documents `POST /api/v2/tts/stream`, the WebSocket API and batch jobs with no shutdown notice, and play.ht serves an old marketing page, while api.play.ht doesn't resolve and the platform closed on 2025-12-31. An endpoint removed while still advertised. https://docs.play.ht/reference/api-getting-started and https://inworld.ai/resources/migrate-from-playht\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- Whether play.ht's old marketing page is served by its current registrant or by a cache. Last week's check and the Inworld guide (as of July 2026) both said the domain didn't resolve.\n- Whether docs.play.ht still serves an llms.txt.\n- We found no shutdown or deletion statement from PlayHT itself, only third-party guides. The Internet Archive copy of the January 2026 shutdown notice cited by the listing was blocked for us today.\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- api.play.ht doesn't resolve, so every call fails\n- docs.play.ht documents live-looking endpoints with no shutdown notice\n- Accounts, audio and voice clones were reportedly deleted at shutdown with no export\n- No notice from PlayHT itself found on the live site, only third-party migration guides\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Don't call api.play.ht, it doesn't resolve.\n- Ignore docs.play.ht code samples, they describe a closed service.\n- Map PlayDialog or Play 3.0 Mini work to another TTS listing before writing code.\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- Add a shutdown notice to the docs\n- post a shutdown notice on docs.play.ht\n- name a replacement\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "F",
    "score": 4.2,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 20,
        "reason": "Retired. On 2026-10-01 api.play.ht didn't resolve, so nothing answers a call. Migration guides put the API going dark around 26 July 2025 and the platform closing on 31 December 2025. No status page (0), no incident record (0), and the historical rate limits describe a service that's gone (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 17.5,
        "reason": "No live surface. Historically a secret key plus a user ID in two headers, with no scopes. Accounts, audio and clones were reportedly deleted at shutdown with no export. Nothing left to score (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 16.3,
        "reason": "No live surface to call, so every line scores 0.",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 12.5,
        "reason": "Nothing can be bought. No x402 was ever documented (0), no live pricing (0), no free tier (0), no signup (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 31,
        "maxGain": 11.2,
        "reason": "What's left is the docs, still served at docs.play.ht with pages last modified in September 2025. No OpenAPI file confirmed (0) and we didn't confirm an llms.txt (0). The getting-started and streaming pages state purpose and limits (8 of 20). Typed request fields with engine names and a 20,000-character streaming cap (10 of 15). Response codes and examples on the reference pages (8 of 15). Versioned `/api/v2` path, no changelog found (5 of 15). The pages carry no shutdown notice, so a model reading them would call an API that doesn't exist.",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "No release or changelog entry in the last 90 days or the last year (0). No support channel (0). SDKs abandoned (0). No package health to judge (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 36,
        "maxGain": 5.6,
        "reason": "SDKs remain on GitHub under Apache-2.0, while the terms survive only as Internet Archive copies (5 of 30). No live privacy policy or retention statement, and the deletion of data at shutdown is reported by third parties, not by PlayHT (0 of 30). We found no shutdown notice from PlayHT on the live site or docs today (0 of 20). No sub-processors or data locations (0 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 5, provenance 66",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Domain age",
        "value": "play.ht, registered 2016-11-29 (9 years)",
        "points": 11,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "could not be fetched",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "2026-10-01. docs.play.ht still documents `POST /api/v2/tts/stream`, the WebSocket API and batch jobs with no shutdown notice, and play.ht serves an old marketing page, while api.play.ht doesn't resolve and the platform closed on 2025-12-31. An endpoint removed while still advertised. https://docs.play.ht/reference/api-getting-started and https://inworld.ai/resources/migrate-from-playht"
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Whether play.ht's old marketing page is served by its current registrant or by a cache. Last week's check and the Inworld guide (as of July 2026) both said the domain didn't resolve.",
      "Whether docs.play.ht still serves an llms.txt.",
      "We found no shutdown or deletion statement from PlayHT itself, only third-party guides. The Internet Archive copy of the January 2026 shutdown notice cited by the listing was blocked for us today."
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "api.play.ht doesn't resolve, so every call fails",
      "docs.play.ht documents live-looking endpoints with no shutdown notice",
      "Accounts, audio and voice clones were reportedly deleted at shutdown with no export",
      "No notice from PlayHT itself found on the live site, only third-party migration guides"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Don't call api.play.ht, it doesn't resolve.",
      "Ignore docs.play.ht code samples, they describe a closed service.",
      "Map PlayDialog or Play 3.0 Mini work to another TTS listing before writing code."
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "Add a shutdown notice to the docs",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "post a shutdown notice on docs.play.ht",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "name a replacement",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-04",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}