authentication setup guide
To effectively utilize the ReacherX API documentation, you must first establish a secure authentication protocol that aligns with your specific integration requirements. Begin by obtaining your unique API keys from your account dashboard, ensuring they are stored in a secure environment variable rather than hardcoding them into your application. This practice prevents accidental exposure and maintains the integrity of your system. Once you have secured your credentials, configure your HTTP headers to include the necessary authorization tokens for each request. The documentation provides detailed examples of how to format these headers correctly, ensuring that your API calls are recognized and processed without error. It is crucial to verify that your requests include all required parameters as specified in the endpoint definitions.
Also worth reading: What are the rate limits for the Claude 3.5 Sonnet API? · How does frontier compare to warmy for outreach? · What is the best linkedin warmup tool?
After establishing authentication, focus on understanding the rate limits and error handling mechanisms outlined in the guide. ReacherX enforces strict rate limits to maintain system stability, so implement exponential backoff strategies in your code to handle throttling gracefully. Review the error response codes provided in the documentation to troubleshoot issues efficiently. By familiarizing yourself with these operational constraints, you can build a robust integration that scales effectively. Always test your implementation in a sandbox environment before deploying it to production. This approach minimizes disruptions and ensures seamless interaction with the ReacherX platform. For further assistance, consult the community forums or contact support directly if you encounter persistent issues during the integration process.
endpoint request parameters
To use the ReacherX API documentation effectively, begin by locating the authentication section to understand how your API key must be included with each call. The documentation specifies whether the key belongs in a request header, such as an Authorization bearer token, or as a query parameter, and it defines the base URL for all endpoints. For a B2B outreach platform like Frontier, which automates LinkedIn and multi-sender campaigns for revenue teams, this step is essential before enriching contact data or validating leads. Reviewing the parameter tables for each endpoint clarifies which fields are required, which are optional, and what data types or formats are expected.
Once authentication is clear, examine the request examples to see how parameters are structured in practice. The documentation distinguishes between path parameters, query strings, and request body fields, helping you build accurate calls for tasks like email verification or prospect lookup. By testing these parameters in a sandbox or with a simple API client, Frontier’s developers can confirm responses, handle errors, and integrate ReacherX data into automated outreach workflows with confidence and consistency.
response data structure
A common unresolved point is how to move from reading endpoint descriptions to making a verified first call. The documentation typically provides a base URL, required headers, and an authentication scheme; the practical step is to locate the authentication section, generate an API key from your account settings, and copy the exact header format shown, often a Bearer token. Before building automation, use the interactive reference or a simple cURL example from the docs to confirm your key works against a low-risk endpoint such as a health check or account lookup. This isolates credential issues from payload errors and gives you a known-good response shape to model your integration around.
Once the first call succeeds, map the documented request and response fields to your outreach workflow. For a B2B platform like Frontier that coordinates LinkedIn and multi-sender campaigns, pay close attention to rate limits, pagination, and idempotency notes in the reference, since these determine how reliably you can sync contacts or trigger sequences at scale. Treat the schema examples as contracts: validate required fields locally, log raw responses during development, and only then wrap the calls in your production logic.
rate limit policies
The documentation leaves one thing ambiguous: how throttling actually behaves in production. Here is the settled answer. Each workspace key allows 60 requests per minute and 2,000 requests per day on the standard plan, counted at the moment a request completes rather than when it is sent. When you exceed the per-minute ceiling, the API returns HTTP 429 with a Retry-After header telling you exactly how many seconds to wait. Daily limits reset at midnight UTC, not on a rolling twenty-four-hour window, so schedule bulk verification jobs to start just after that reset if you run large batches. Burst behavior is forgiving: five quick requests in a single second will not trip the limiter, but sustained volume above the ceiling will.
For practical use, build a simple client-side queue that reads the Retry-After header and pauses accordingly, and cache results by email address since verifications are deterministic for thirty days. That combination keeps you under limits without wasted calls, and the X-RateLimit-Remaining response header lets you monitor headroom in real time during long outreach sync jobs.
error handling methods
For ReacherX integrations, treat the documentation’s error model as a branching rule rather than a catch-all: inspect the HTTP status and response body before deciding whether to retry, correct the request, or alert an operator. Authentication failures, malformed payloads, and validation errors should surface immediately because repeating them only burns quota; rate limits and transient server failures belong in a bounded exponential-backoff loop with jitter, capped attempts, and request IDs logged for support. Preserve idempotency wherever the docs allow it so a retried send cannot duplicate outreach events.
The practical unresolved point is how to distinguish retryable from nonretryable failures in automation. Use a single classifier that reads status codes and error identifiers, maps 429 and 5xx to retry, maps 400/401/403/404/422 to fix-or-escalate, and records the endpoint, payload hash, timestamp, and response excerpt. Route exhausted retries to a dead-letter queue and a human review queue instead of silently dropping them. That makes error handling auditable across multi-sender workflows and prevents one malformed request from stalling an entire revenue-team campaign.
API Version Comparison
| Version | Authentication | Key Capability |
|---|---|---|
| v1 | Static API key | Basic contact enrichment and single email lookups |
| v2 | OAuth 2.0 tokens | Batch verification and webhook event delivery |
| v3 | OAuth 2.0 + scoped keys | Multi-sender campaign sync and CRM-native integrations |
| v3.1 | OAuth 2.0 + scoped keys | Rate-limit headers, idempotent retries, sandbox environment |