← Back to Blog
Operations13 min read

AI Agent Observability: Monitoring, Auditing, and Cost Control at Scale

E2E Agentic Bridge·February 22, 2025

AI Agent Observability: Monitoring, Auditing, and Cost Control at Scale

You can't manage what you can't measure. And right now, most organizations deploying AI agents are flying blind.

They know their agents are running. They can see the invoices from OpenAI or Anthropic climbing month over month. But ask them what those agents are actually doing — how many API calls per task, what decisions they're making, what data they're touching, why a customer got a wrong answer at 2:47 AM — and you'll get blank stares.

Traditional APM tools weren't built for this. Your Datadog dashboards can tell you that an HTTP request took 340ms, but they can't tell you that your agent burned 47,000 tokens reasoning in circles before hallucinating an answer. Your PagerDuty alerts fire on 500 errors, but they can't detect that an agent is confidently executing a plan that violates your business rules.

This article lays out a comprehensive observability framework for agentic AI systems — one designed for the team that will be on-call when agents misbehave at 3 AM.

Why Traditional Monitoring Falls Short

APM tools like Datadog, New Relic, and Grafana are built around a request-response model. A user hits an endpoint, the system processes it, and a response comes back. You measure latency, error rates, throughput. Done.

AI agents break this model in fundamental ways:

Non-deterministic execution. The same input can produce different outputs, different tool call sequences, and different token consumption patterns every single time. There's no "expected" trace shape to baseline against.

Multi-step autonomy. An agent might make 15 API calls, read 3 documents, execute 2 code blocks, and make 8 intermediate decisions before producing a final output. Each step is a potential failure point, and the failure mode isn't a stack trace — it's a subtly wrong reasoning step buried in a chain of thought.

Token economics. Traditional monitoring tracks compute (CPU, memory, IOPS). Agent monitoring must track tokens — a fundamentally different cost model where a single poorly-written prompt can cost 100x more than an optimized one, and where costs scale with conversation length, not just request volume.

Tool use and side effects. Agents don't just read data — they take actions. They send emails, update databases, create tickets, call external APIs. A misbehaving agent isn't just slow; it's doing things wrong in the real world.

Emergent behavior in multi-agent systems. When agents collaborate, coordinate, or delegate to each other, the system behavior is greater than the sum of its parts — and harder to trace.

You need purpose-built observability. Here's how to build it.

The Three Pillars, Reimagined for Agents

The classic observability triad — metrics, logs, traces — still applies, but each pillar needs fundamental adaptation for agentic systems.

Metrics: What to Measure

Forget throughput and P99 latency as your primary signals. For AI agents, the metrics that matter are:

Token consumption — Track input tokens, output tokens, and reasoning tokens (for models that expose them) per request, per agent, per task type. This is your primary cost signal. A single agentic workflow using Claude or GPT-4 can consume 100K+ tokens when tool use and long context windows are involved. At $15/million output tokens for frontier models, a chatty agent loop processing 1,000 tasks/day could run $50-150/day on token costs alone.

Cost per task — Aggregate token costs with any external API costs (search, retrieval, tool execution) into a single "cost per completed task" metric. This is the number your CFO cares about. Break it down by task type, team, and project for cost attribution.

Action sequences — How many tool calls per task? What's the distribution? An agent averaging 3 tool calls that suddenly starts averaging 12 is either handling harder tasks or stuck in a loop.

Decision quality signals — User feedback rates, correction rates, escalation rates. These are lagging indicators but essential for detecting slow degradation.

Error taxonomy — Don't just count errors. Classify them: model refusals, tool failures, context window overflows, rate limits hit, hallucination-detected, timeout, guardrail violations. Each category demands a different response.

Latency breakdown — End-to-end is useful but insufficient. Break it into: model inference time, tool execution time, retrieval time, queue wait time. Agents are I/O-heavy; your bottleneck is rarely where you think it is.

Logs: Structured, Contextual, Complete

Every agent action must be logged with full context. Not "agent called tool" — that's useless at 3 AM. You need:

{
  "trace_id": "abc-123",
  "span_id": "def-456",
  "timestamp": "2025-02-22T03:47:12Z",
  "agent_id": "support-agent-v3",
  "session_id": "user-789-session-42",
  "action": "tool_call",
  "tool": "database_query",
  "input": {
    "query": "SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = 789 AND status = 'pending'",
    "reason": "User asked about pending orders"
  },
  "output": {
    "rows_returned": 3,
    "latency_ms": 45
  },
  "token_usage": {
    "input_tokens": 1247,
    "output_tokens": 89,
    "cumulative_session_tokens": 14503
  },
  "triggered_by": "user_message",
  "decision_context": "User asked 'where are my orders?' - routing to order lookup tool"
}

The critical fields that most teams miss:

  • triggered_by: Who or what initiated this action? A user message, another agent, a scheduled trigger, an error retry?
  • decision_context: Why did the agent choose this action? This is your debuggability lifeline.
  • cumulative_session_tokens: Running total for the session. This is how you catch runaway conversations before they drain your budget.

Log retention matters. For compliance (SOC 2, GDPR), you'll need 90+ days of structured logs. For debugging and improvement, you need at least the last 30 days readily queryable. Budget your storage accordingly — a busy agent system can generate gigabytes of logs daily.

Traces: The Agent Execution Graph

This is where traditional distributed tracing meets agentic workflows, and where things get interesting.

An agent trace isn't a linear chain of spans — it's a tree, often with branches, loops, and recursive calls. OpenTelemetry's GenAI Semantic Conventions (which reached development status in 2024) provide a standardized schema for this. The key attributes include gen_ai.system, gen_ai.request.model, gen_ai.usage.input_tokens, and gen_ai.usage.output_tokens.

A well-structured agent trace looks like:

[Agent Task: "Resolve support ticket #4521"]
├── [LLM Call: Analyze ticket] (1,200 tokens)
├── [Tool: Search knowledge base] (340ms)
├── [LLM Call: Synthesize answer] (2,100 tokens)
├── [Tool: Check user account status] (120ms)
├── [LLM Call: Draft response] (1,800 tokens)
│   ├── [Guardrail: PII detection] (pass)
│   └── [Guardrail: Tone check] (pass)
└── [Tool: Send response to user] (200ms)
    Total: 5,100 tokens | $0.02 | 3.2s

The trace tells you everything: what happened, in what order, how long each step took, how many tokens were consumed, and whether guardrails caught anything. When something goes wrong, you don't grep through logs — you pull up the trace and see exactly where the wheels came off.

The Observability Tool Landscape

The ecosystem has matured rapidly. Here's what's available:

Langfuse (open-source) — Self-hostable tracing and analytics for LLM applications. Strong on cost tracking, prompt management, and evaluation. The open-source nature makes it attractive for teams with data residency requirements. Integrates with OpenAI, Anthropic, LangChain, and most major frameworks.

Helicone — Proxy-based approach: route your LLM API calls through Helicone and get instant observability with a single line of code. Excellent for quick wins on cost monitoring and rate limiting. Their gateway model means no SDK changes required.

LangSmith — Deep integration with the LangChain ecosystem. Best-in-class for teams already using LangChain/LangGraph, with native support for agent traces, dataset management, and evaluation workflows.

Datadog LLM Observability — For teams already invested in Datadog, their LLM monitoring now natively supports OpenTelemetry GenAI Semantic Conventions. Gives you agent traces alongside your existing infrastructure monitoring — valuable for correlating agent issues with system-level problems.

AgentOps — Purpose-built for multi-agent systems. Session replay, agent-level analytics, and compliance logging. Newer entrant but focused specifically on the agentic use case.

OpenLLMetry (by Traceloop) — Open-source OpenTelemetry-native instrumentation for LLM apps. If you want vendor-neutral telemetry that flows into your existing OTel backend (Jaeger, Tempo, etc.), this is the path.

Our recommendation: Start with OpenTelemetry as your instrumentation layer. It's vendor-neutral, widely supported, and the GenAI semantic conventions give you a stable schema. Then choose a backend based on your existing stack and specific needs.

Audit Trails: Every Action, Every Decision

For any enterprise deploying AI agents, comprehensive audit trails aren't optional — they're a compliance requirement.

What Must Be Logged

Every agent interaction needs an immutable record containing:

  1. Trigger: What initiated the action (user request, scheduled task, another agent, event trigger)
  2. Input: The full input context (user message, retrieved documents, system prompt)
  3. Reasoning: The agent's chain of thought or decision rationale
  4. Actions taken: Every tool call, API request, and data access with full parameters
  5. Output: The final response or outcome delivered
  6. Outcome metadata: Success/failure, user feedback, any corrections applied

Compliance Mapping

SOC 2 Type II requires demonstrating that controls are operating effectively over time. For AI agents, this means proving that: access controls govern what data agents can reach, changes to agent behavior (prompt updates, model changes) go through change management, and anomalous agent behavior is detected and investigated. Your audit logs are your evidence.

GDPR adds data-subject-specific requirements. When an agent processes personal data, you must log: what data was accessed, the legal basis for processing, any data sent to third-party APIs (including LLM providers), and data retention/deletion actions. Article 22 specifically addresses automated decision-making — if your agents make decisions that significantly affect individuals, you may need to provide meaningful explanations of the logic involved.

The practical implication: Your logging infrastructure must support both real-time operational queries ("what did agent X do in the last hour?") and compliance queries ("show me every time any agent accessed user Y's personal data in the last 12 months"). Design your schema accordingly.

Cost Control at Scale

LLM API costs follow a pattern that catches most organizations off guard: they grow linearly during development, then explode exponentially at scale. Here's how to stay ahead.

Cost Attribution

Implement cost tagging from day one. Every LLM API call should carry metadata identifying:

  • Team/department — Who owns this agent?
  • Project/product — What business function does it serve?
  • Task type — Classification of the work being done
  • Priority tier — Is this a user-facing real-time request or a background batch job?

This lets you build chargeback models, identify cost outliers, and make informed decisions about optimization.

Budget Controls

Implement hard and soft limits at multiple levels:

cost_controls:
  global:
    daily_hard_limit: $5,000
    daily_soft_alert: $3,500
  per_team:
    engineering:
      monthly_budget: $15,000
      alert_at: 80%
    support:
      monthly_budget: $8,000
      alert_at: 75%
  per_agent:
    support_agent_v3:
      per_task_limit: $0.50
      per_session_token_limit: 50000
      daily_limit: $500

When a soft limit is hit, alert. When a hard limit is hit, degrade gracefully — switch to a cheaper model, reduce context window size, or queue the request for off-peak processing.

Token Optimization Strategies

Prompt caching — OpenAI and Anthropic both offer prompt caching for repeated prefixes. If your agents use consistent system prompts, this can cut input token costs by 50-90% on cached portions.

Model routing — Not every task needs GPT-4 or Claude Opus. Implement a router that sends simple tasks to smaller, cheaper models and reserves frontier models for complex reasoning. A well-tuned router can cut costs 60-80% with minimal quality impact.

Context window management — Agents with long conversations accumulate context. Implement summarization checkpoints that compress older conversation history, keeping the context window lean without losing important details.

Batch processing — For non-real-time workloads, use batch APIs (OpenAI's Batch API offers 50% discount). Queue background agent tasks and process them in bulk during off-peak hours.

Anomaly Detection for Agents

Traditional anomaly detection looks for statistical outliers in time series data. Agent anomaly detection needs to understand behavioral patterns:

Token consumption spikes — An agent suddenly using 5x its normal tokens per task likely indicates a reasoning loop, an adversarial input, or a prompt injection attempt.

Tool call pattern changes — If an agent that normally makes 2-3 database queries per task starts making 20, something is wrong. Either the data schema changed, the prompt degraded, or the agent is being manipulated.

Error rate shifts — A gradual increase in tool call failures often precedes a visible user-facing failure. Detect and alert on the slope, not just the absolute rate.

Decision distribution drift — Track the distribution of agent decisions over time. If your routing agent normally sends 30% of tickets to billing and that suddenly shifts to 60%, investigate — even if no individual decision looks wrong.

Latency anomalies — Sudden increases in model inference time can indicate provider issues, but gradual increases often signal growing context windows or more complex reasoning chains.

Set up automated responses for known failure modes:

| Anomaly | Auto-Remediation | Escalation | |---------|-----------------|------------| | Token loop detected | Kill session, retry with fresh context | Alert if retry also loops | | Rate limit hit | Exponential backoff, model fallback | Alert if degraded >10 min | | Cost spike (>3x normal) | Switch to budget model | Page on-call if sustained >1h | | Tool failure cascade | Circuit breaker, cached fallback | Alert after 3rd consecutive failure | | Guardrail violation | Block response, log for review | Immediate page for PII leaks |

Multi-Agent Observability

When agents delegate to other agents, your traces become a distributed system problem. You need:

Correlation IDs that propagate — Every task should have a root trace ID that flows through every agent in the chain. When Agent A delegates to Agent B which calls Agent C, you need one trace that shows the full picture.

Agent topology maps — Visualize which agents talk to which other agents, how frequently, and with what latency. This is your service map for the agentic layer.

Cross-agent cost attribution — If Agent A triggers Agent B which spends $2 on LLM calls, that cost should be attributable back to Agent A's original task.

Cascade failure detection — In multi-agent systems, one agent's failure can cascade. If Agent A retries a failed delegation to Agent B, and Agent B retries its own internal failures, you get exponential cost and latency amplification. Monitor delegation depth and set hard limits.

The Agent Ops Dashboard

Your dashboard should answer these questions at a glance:

Top row — Health signals:

  • Active agents / healthy / degraded / error state
  • Requests per minute (current vs. baseline)
  • P50/P95 end-to-end latency
  • Error rate (last 1h trend)

Second row — Cost:

  • Today's spend (actual vs. budget, with projection)
  • Cost per task by agent type (trend)
  • Top 5 most expensive tasks (last 24h)
  • Token consumption heatmap (by hour, by agent)

Third row — Quality:

  • Task completion rate
  • User feedback scores (if available)
  • Guardrail trigger rate
  • Escalation rate to humans

Bottom row — Anomalies:

  • Active alerts and their status
  • Agents outside behavioral baselines
  • Longest-running active sessions
  • Upcoming budget threshold warnings

The Feedback Loop

Observability data isn't just for firefighting — it's your agent improvement engine.

Identify expensive failures. Sort traces by cost, filter to failed outcomes. These are your highest-ROI optimization targets. Often, a single prompt improvement can eliminate an entire class of expensive reasoning loops.

Benchmark prompt changes. Before deploying a prompt update, measure the current cost and quality baselines from your observability data. After deployment, compare. No more guessing whether a change helped.

Discover edge cases. Anomaly detection surfaces the unusual inputs that your agents struggle with. Feed these into your evaluation datasets to make your agents more robust.

Optimize model routing. Analyze which tasks succeed on cheaper models and which genuinely need frontier capabilities. Your observability data tells you exactly where the quality threshold lies.

Getting Started: A Practical Roadmap

Week 1: Instrument. Add OpenTelemetry instrumentation to your agent framework. Capture traces, token counts, and tool calls. Ship to whatever backend you have (even just structured JSON logs to start).

Week 2: Cost visibility. Build the cost attribution pipeline. Tag every API call with team, project, and task type. Set up daily cost reports.

Week 3: Alerting. Define your anomaly thresholds based on the first two weeks of baseline data. Set up PagerDuty/Opsgenie alerts for token loops, cost spikes, and error cascades.

Week 4: Audit. Review your logging against your compliance requirements. Ensure you're capturing the full decision chain. Set up retention policies.

Ongoing: Optimize. Use the feedback loop. Every week, review the most expensive traces, the most common failures, and the anomaly patterns. Tighten your prompts, tune your routing, and refine your guardrails.

Conclusion

AI agent observability isn't a nice-to-have — it's the difference between a system you operate and a system that operates you. The organizations that treat agent observability as a first-class infrastructure concern will scale their AI deployments confidently. The ones that don't will learn the hard way, usually via an unexpected invoice, a compliance audit, or a 3 AM page about an agent that decided to email every customer in the database.

You can't manage what you can't measure. Start measuring today.