Compare pool depth across tokens with different unit prices

Token counts are not comparable depth units across assets with different values. Convert trade capacity into a common economic unit using stated prices, and align the execution constraint before ranking pools.

A misleading token-count comparison

Imagine hypothetical Pool A can exchange 100 tokens within a chosen cost band, with each token valued at $100. Pool B can exchange 1,000 tokens in the same type of band, with each valued at $1. The capacities are $10,000 and $1,000 respectively. B's larger token count represents less economic capacity.

The conversion is only as defensible as the reference prices. If either token lacks a reliable valuation, show native units and the assumed conversion rather than a definitive dollar ranking.

Match the band definition

One measure may limit final marginal-price movement while another limits average execution shortfall. A 1% label does not make those capacities comparable. Align whether fees and separate network payments are included, as well as direction and observation state.

Mid price and execution price describe different quantities, which is why the normalization needs more than a currency conversion.

A compact reporting format

State capacity as an input amount, its reference value, the trade direction, the exact cost or price bound, and the measured state. For example, an illustrative report might say that a pool accepts a specified input value while keeping average output-rate shortfall below 0.5%, before gas.

Also distinguish local pool capacity from aggregate routed capacity. A quote combining several venues should not be compared with one pool's depth without explaining the scope difference.

Normalization does not eliminate every market difference. It makes the comparison's units and boundaries explicit so readers can see which differences are economic and which arise from incompatible measurement conventions.