AI agents are now everywhere on roadmaps. They plan, reason, call tools, retrieve context, and complete multi-step tasks with a degree of autonomy that traditional prompt–response systems cannot match. The demos look magical. The prototypes feel promising. But as organizations begin deploying agents into production workflows, customer experiences, and internal operations, they run into a shared and consistent problem.
The cost model no longer behaves the way it used to.
Teams expect agent-cost to be a simple function of model usage. Instead, they discover workloads that branch unpredictably, generate hidden downstream activity, and blur the boundaries between models, vendors, tools, and services. This isn’t a sign of poor implementation. It’s a direct result of how agents behave. Agentic systems are fundamentally different from linear LLM pipelines, and their cost structures reflect that difference.
Why agentic workloads break predictability
Most teams begin with a familiar mental model: one request leads to one model call, which in turn yields a predictable number of tokens and a predictable cost. Agentic systems break this immediately. A single agent request can trigger a wide range of downstream work:
- Early planning steps that expand a simple request into multi-step reasoning
- Calls to external tools or microservices
- RAG retrieval, often multiple times per step
- Fallback behaviors triggered by uncertainty, incomplete data, or missing context
- Downstream calls to embeddings, search, or vector stores
- Routing across different models or even different vendors
- Parallel agents or sub-agents taking different branches
The execution path is not a line. It is a tree. Every branch carries cost.
This fan-out behavior rarely appears in prototypes because prototypes use clean inputs. It emerges only once tasks involve real-world complexity: messy data, partial information, ambiguous instructions, or unexpected edge cases. By that point, the system is already running in production.
These patterns are not random. They stem from a few predictable forces that shape how agents behave at scale.
The three forces that create unexpected agent costs
Across engineering reviews, financial audits, and post-incident analysis, three recurring forces consistently explain why agentic workloads become unpredictable and expensive.
- Autonomy-related loops, retries, and expansions: Agents make decisions about what to do next. When uncertainty or imperfect information appears, they often expand their own workload in ways that improve quality but increase cost. This includes looping through planning steps, critiquing or refining drafts, retrying tool or model calls when they detect ambiguity, escalating to larger or more capable models, and generating extra reasoning stages when tasks feel underdefined. These behaviors are part of what makes agents powerful, but they also introduce compute growth that is difficult to anticipate in advance.
- Tooling and retrieval layers that sit outside model dashboards: Few agent workloads stop at the LLM. They interact with the broader application ecosystem, which quietly adds additional cost. An agent might call an embedding API to prepare input, query a vector database for retrieval, hit an internal service to check status or inventory, or trigger a SaaS API for a downstream action. These operations incur compute, storage, or bandwidth, yet they rarely show up in vendor dashboards, are often inconsistently logged, and are almost never tied back to a specific workflow or agent persona. As a result, large portions of spend appear detached from any obvious root cause.
- Cross-vendor behavior with no clean attribution: Modern agent ecosystems use multiple vendors by default. Organizations often pair OpenAI with Anthropic, Gemini with Llama, Pinecone with Elasticsearch, LangChain with Kubernetes-native tools, or mix AWS workloads with GCP or Azure services. This diversity makes experimentation easier but cost attribution harder. When workloads share credentials or service accounts, invoices cannot be traced back to a specific team, project, or feature. Engineering sees components. Finance sees totals. Neither sees how the pieces stitch together into the actual cost graph that drove the spend.
Organizations don’t struggle because they lack tools. They struggle because the tools they have were built for predictable, centralized workloads, not distributed, branching agent systems.
- Cloud billing platforms provide aggregated totals with multi-hour or multi-day delays, which cannot explain which branch of a workflow generated the spike.
- Model vendor dashboards show only their own model calls, hiding retries, RAG calls, tool invocations, and sub-agent execution.
- Tracing and logging systems highlight activity but not cost, and they miss any step that was never instrumented in the first place.
- Finance platforms assume linear, stable usage patterns that do not hold once agents begin planning, exploring, and escalating dynamically.
The result is a system where cost is visible only after the fact, and never in the context needed to govern it.
BLOG: The AI Budget Crisis You Can’t See (But Are Definitely Paying For)
Governing agent costs and where Cake fits in
Before deploying a specialized platform, organizations can begin establishing baseline predictability with a few foundational practices:
- Isolate workloads with distinct keys or credentials for each agent, workflow, environment, or team
- Instrument retrieval steps, embeddings, vector stores, and internal tool calls alongside the model invocation
- Model branching behavior and loop depth rather than relying solely on token estimates
- Monitor agents for behavioral drift as tasks, data, or context change
- Track cost at the workflow level instead of using coarse vendor totals
These practices do not replace a unified cost governance system, but they create the visibility organizations need to make informed decisions.
This is the layer Cake is built for. Cake provides:
- Unified telemetry: A complete view across LLMs, embeddings, tool calls, vector stores, and internal services
- Workflow-level cost graphs: Visualizations that reveal how each agent actually executed across every branch
- Isolated API keys: Clean attribution through per-agent and per-workflow key separation
- Real-time anomaly detection: Automated detection for loops, retries, runaway chains, and unexpected drift
- Policy controls: Budgets, routing rules, and operational guardrails enforced at execution time
- Financial-grade reporting: Shared dashboards that product, engineering, and finance can all rely on
Cake allows teams to keep building more agents, just pragmatically, with accurate visibility into how they behave and what they cost as they scale.
A smarter way to scale autonomous systems
Agentic AI is powerful, but it introduces execution patterns that traditional monitoring and finance tools were never designed to handle. As autonomy grows, so does the complexity, and so does the spend.
Teams that succeed will be the ones who treat agent workloads as systems that require visibility, attribution, and governance, not just prompts and tokens. Cake provides the dedicated layer needed to scale agents responsibly, with confidence in both performance and cost.
If you are beginning to build agentic features, or already seeing unpredictable cost behavior, now is the right time to bring cost governance into place.