Why liquidity split across fee tiers is not one interchangeable pool

Different fee tiers usually identify separate pools with their own capital, price state and execution charge. Their reserves are not one interchangeable balance merely because they trade the same two tokens.

Why a blended fee can mislead

Suppose hypothetical Pool A has deep liquidity and a 0.30% fee, while Pool B is smaller with a 0.05% fee. Averaging those fees to 0.175% says little about a proposed swap. The route may use only A, only B, or unequal portions of both.

A capital-weighted fee is also not automatically the trader's fee. The relevant weights are the actual amounts routed through each pool, with the appropriate base for each charge.

Inspect independent price states

Uniswap's fee-tier documentation describes multiple pools for a pair. Separate pools can offer different size-specific rates because both their fee and liquidity differ.

Adding their token reserves together and applying one average fee constructs a fictional pool unless a specific model justifies that approximation. It can hide a thin low-fee pool or a favorable price available only for a small quantity.

Measure accessible capacity

Compare quotes from the available tiers at the intended size, then compare the route that can combine them if such routing is supported. Record additional execution costs from accessing more pools.

Do not assume that the existence of a lower tier means the user could move the entire trade there at the displayed marginal rate. Nor should a high aggregate TVL across tiers be treated as immediately available within one price band.

A clear report lists pool identifiers, fee treatment, state and capacity under the chosen constraint. It then describes the actual route's output. This preserves the distinction between a fragmented market's total capital and the net execution achievable by this transaction.