I'm immediately turned off by the demo though, because it's relying on a 'fake http server' in the client side JS.
If your toy examples can't be run against a real server, I have zero expectation of it working well for non-trivial examples.
I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.
Reducing server load makes sense. Use a CDN or proxy, and aggressively cache responses.
Adding an entirely faked backend response, so that the examples don't actually show the real traffic it would generate is both adding complexity to the demo, and potentially giving a misleading picture of how usable the library is: for all we know, it's too slow to use as the examples show, because a real HTTP request to a backend is going to be slower than a javascript function returning a pre-determined string.
The library is displayed fully functionable, but other parts are mocked. Your example is asinine.
Developer tools in browsers are a thing that exist, and show you what is actually requested.