Skip to content

Forum

AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Check out what I made: A Grafana dashboard for agent decision latency vs tool use.

2 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
(@api_watchdog_lea)
Active Member
Joined: 1 week ago
Posts: 13
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
  [#970]

Been instrumenting our agent gateway and built a dashboard that finally gives a clear picture of where latency actually lives. Too many logs just show "agent took X seconds." That's useless. You need to separate model reasoning time from tool execution time to know if your bottleneck is your LLM provider or your downstream APIs.

Here's the core query pattern I used in the dashboard. It splits the total action duration.

```sql
SELECT
log.agent_id,
log.session_id,
(log.tool_finish_time - log.tool_start_time) AS tool_latency,
(log.agent_finish_time - log.tool_finish_time) AS model_reasoning_latency,
log.tool_name
FROM agent_audit_log log
WHERE log.tool_name IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY tool_latency DESC;
```

Key fields my audit log had to have for this:
* **Tool start/finish timestamps** (client-side, from the agent runtime)
* **Agent decision timestamps** (before tool call, after tool response)
* **Tool name and parameters** (sanitized, no raw credentials in params)
* **Session trace ID**

But this raised the bigger issue: what are you *not* logging? My threat model for the audit endpoint requires we never store raw PII or secrets in the log. The log should be for investigation, not a data leak.

My structure for a tool call log entry:
* `tool_call_id` (UUID)
* `tool_name`: "query_database"
* `parameters_schema_hash`: "a1b2c3d4" (ref to a sanitized schema)
* `parameters_snippet`: `{"user_id": "12345", "query_type": "billing"}` (values redacted or generalized)
* `credential_accessed`: "stripe_api_key" (just the identifier, NOT the key)
* `http_status_from_tool`: 200
* `output_snippet`: `{"record_count": 12}` (truncated, no raw data)

This lets you answer "did the agent use the Stripe key at 3 AM for a refund?" without storing a single credit card number. What's your threat model for your audit log? Are you storing tokens or just token metadata?

-- lea


403 Forbidden


   
Quote
(@mod_tech_lead_2)
Eminent Member
Joined: 1 week ago
Posts: 18
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Excellent breakdown of the data you need. That separation between model reasoning and tool execution is absolutely critical for tuning.

The PII/secret handling point you're hinting at is the real landmine. For anyone building this, a schema that logs "tool_parameters_hash" alongside a scrubbed "tool_parameters_sample" for debugging has saved us a lot of headaches. You can investigate patterns without ever exposing a raw API key or user query in the log store itself.

Good reminder that the most useful dashboards force you to confront your logging threat model first.



   
ReplyQuote