LLM Observability

See every LLM call inside your traces

Instrument your app with OpenLLMetry and each model call becomes a span in KloudMate, with token counts, cost, and latency, in the same traces as the rest of your stack.

POST /chat — KloudMate Traces KloudMate · Traces Trace · GenAI workflow POST /chat Duration 2.41s Tokens 3,840 Cost $0.042 Fallbacks 1 Span Duration generate_answer 2.41s pinecone.query 170ms openai.chat gpt-4o 1.35s tool get_order 290ms openai.chat fallback 330ms

AI request failures are hard to debug without an end-to-end view.

KloudMate treats AI workflows as part of the wider application path, so teams can trace model behavior, cost, and latency inside the same distributed system context they already use for the rest of the stack.

What teams can do with LLM Observability

Instrument AI apps with OpenLLMetry, then investigate them with the same traces, dashboards, and discipline you already use for the rest of your services.

Trace model-backed workflows end to end

Follow the request path across retrieval, model calls, tool use, and downstream services in one trace, not AI metrics watched in isolation.

Watch token usage, cost, and latency

Every span carries model, prompt and completion tokens, cost, and latency. Build dashboards from those attributes to balance performance against spend.

Instrument with OpenLLMetry

Add the OpenLLMetry SDK, built on OpenTelemetry, to capture spans from OpenAI, Anthropic, LangChain, and vector stores like Pinecone, through the same pipeline as the rest of your stack.

Debug slow or failed AI requests

Open the request trace behind a bad AI response, high latency, or retry storm and inspect where the workflow actually broke down.

Understand prompt and workflow behavior

The operational goal is to connect model behavior to the full application path so AI incidents can be debugged like any other distributed workflow.

01

Instrument with the OpenLLMetry SDK

Add the OpenLLMetry SDK so model calls, retrieval, and tool use emit spans into the same request path as the rest of your app.

02

Compare usage, latency, and cost

Review the request classes or model calls driving the highest latency, token volume, or operational cost.

03

Open the failing workflow trace

Inspect the prompt, model, tool, and downstream steps in order to see where the AI path actually became slow or failed.

04

Share the finding operationally

Use reporting, logs, or incident workflows when the AI issue becomes something more than a one-off debugging task.

Token usage and cost by call — KloudMate Traces KloudMate · Traces LLM operations · last 24h Token usage and cost by call Tokens 4.1M/day Spend $182/day Fallbacks 4.2% Operation Model p95 latency Cost / 24h openai.chat completions · 14.2k calls gpt-4o 1.4s $128/day openai.chat fallback path · 612 calls gpt-4o-mini 320ms $11/day pinecone.query vector retrieval ada-002 180ms $6/day embeddings index documents embed-3 95ms $37/day Highest token path openai.chat · gpt-4o · 62% of the last 24h spend

Track LLM usage, latency, and workflow health

LLM observability should expose the operational shape of AI traffic, not only its output. KloudMate keeps model usage and request health close enough to compare and act on them together.

  • Review token usage and request latency for the AI workflows that matter most
  • Understand fallback or retry behavior before it turns into a reliability or cost problem
  • Compare model-backed request patterns with the rest of the application path
Prompt → model → tool → response — KloudMate correlation AI request trace Prompt → model → tool → response 01 Prompt received
AI request begins inside application flow
02 Model call slows
latency and token usage increase
03 Fallback path triggered
tool execution and retries rise
04 User response delayed
shareable incident evidence prepared
Dominant cost center chat-completions largest token consumer in current range Suggested next step Compare fallback traces separate model latency from tool latency

Debug failed or slow AI requests in the same trace flow

AI requests often fail in the spaces between the model and the rest of the application. An end-to-end trace helps teams see whether the real bottleneck is the model call, a fallback path, or a downstream dependency.

  • Open the full request path for one degraded AI interaction
  • Compare model latency with tool and downstream service timing
  • Use the same observability workflow for AI paths and non-AI service calls
KloudMate AI

Use KloudMate Assistant to summarize degraded AI workflows

Assistant can help teams explain which AI request pattern is regressing, whether the issue looks model-driven or workflow-driven, and which trace or cost signal deserves attention first.

  • Summarize Explain the model-backed workflow that changed first
  • Separate Distinguish model latency from tool or downstream latency
  • Guide Point responders toward the next trace, report, or log slice worth opening
Explore platform
Why did this AI request slow down? — KloudMate Auto-RCA Assistant on LLM workflows Why did this AI request slow down? Q
Summarize whether the regression is model latency, cost growth, or a downstream workflow issue.
Assistant · likely cause
  • The largest shift is the model call latency, but fallback tool execution is amplifying user-visible delay.
  • Token usage increased on the chat-completions path at the same time as retries rose.
  • Open the full AI trace to compare inference time against the fallback branch next.
Primary signal Model latency increased largest contributor to response delay Secondary signal Fallback retries rose workflow cost and latency both higher Suggested next check Open the full AI trace compare model and tool stages

Get started

From telemetry to root cause,
in one platform.

Connect your OpenTelemetry pipeline, AWS integrations, or eBPF agent. Distributed tracing, log management, alerting, and AI-assisted investigation: unified, with predictable pricing.