Why buying and selling the same token can face different depth

Inspect both directions when the question concerns the ability to enter and exit a position. Liquidity concentrated around different price ranges or an imbalanced stable-asset pool can offer different capacity for buying and selling. A good quote in one direction does not establish the reverse result.

Normalize the size first

Suppose a token's chosen reference value is hypothetically $2. Comparing a purchase with $1,000 input against a sale of 1,000 tokens compares roughly $1,000 with $2,000 of exposure. Use a sale of about 500 tokens for the matched initial-reference-value test, while stating that the reference itself is approximate.

Record size-specific output in each direction and the deviation from that direction's reference. Include fees consistently. Do not use reciprocal average prices as though they were independently available reverse quotes.

Why asymmetry can arise

In concentrated pools, a trade can encounter different ranges on opposite sides of the current price. Liquidity providers choose bounded ranges, so the capacity traversed in each direction can differ.

This is not a claim that all AMMs have inherently unequal normalized depth. A symmetric fee-free full-range constant-product pool, measured at its own spot price with matched initial economic sizes, provides a useful symmetric reference case. Additional assumptions produce the asymmetry.

A diagnostic, not a round-trip promise

Obtain paired quotes close in time and preserve their starting states. The buy and sell quotes describe alternatives from those states. If you execute one first, it changes the state for the other.

Report both sides separately: purchase capacity at a defined cost limit and sale capacity at the same type of limit. If one side deteriorates sharply with size, inspect its route and range boundaries. This approach reveals directional constraints without assuming that a token's aggregate TVL makes entry and exit equally inexpensive.