I find that is a far less common problem than the documentation being wrong. Even if someone doesn't add documentation for some library, static types provide a lot more insight into how it works than dynamic languages (Racket style contracts are even better since they can check way more than static types while still working in a first class way with docs).
They can be consumed by static analysis tooling, which assuming properly configured etc. makes it sort of 'dynamically typed language with the guarantees of a statically typed one', at least so far as the hints are complete.
Most statically typed languages compile down to object code which runs in one of the most dynamic runtime environments imaginable. What are the types in the source code but “comments”?
