PRODUCTION USE CASE

LLM API for multilingual chatbots

A travel product supports English, Japanese, Spanish, and Chinese. The system detects the conversation locale, loads that locale's product glossary and policy snippets, and asks the model to reply without translating protected product names.

Multilingual support conversation preserving locale-specific terminology
LLM API for multilingual chatbots

Production recipe

API, primary model, and failover configuration

Production choiceRecommendationWhy
APIPOST /v1/chat/completionsOpenAI-compatible server-side request
Primary modelgemini-2.5-flashGemini 2.5 Flash is the first choice for a multilingual, latency-sensitive chat workload.
Fallback modelgpt-5.4-miniUse gpt-5.4-mini only for languages where it passes the same native review. Send policy-heavy or mixed-language failures to Terra.
Escalation modelgpt-5.6-terraUse only when the primary route fails the defined quality or complexity boundary
Output contractTask-specific text or patchA locale-correct reply with protected terms preserved and no policy content imported from another region.
01
Scenario

Multilingual chatbots in a production application

A travel product supports English, Japanese, Spanish, and Chinese. The system detects the conversation locale, loads that locale's product glossary and policy snippets, and asks the model to reply without translating protected product names.

Quality is scored separately by language. A language does not launch because the average score is good; it launches only after native reviewers accept intent, terminology, tone, and refusal behavior for that locale.

02
Architecture

How the multilingual chatbots workflow operates

  • Detect language and locale separately.
  • Load the locale glossary and approved policy snippets.
  • Generate directly in the target language.
  • Check protected terms, numbers, and policy wording.
  • Route unsupported or low-confidence language to a human.
03
API request

Call gemini-2.5-flash through LLMFly AI

Send the request from your server. Replace the example content and placeholder tool schema with data and tools from your application.

request.exampleCopy-ready
curl https://app.llmfly.ai/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $LLMFLY_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "messages": [
      {"role": "system", "content": "Reply in the detected locale. Preserve GLOSSARY terms exactly. Use only the supplied locale policy and do not translate protected product names."},
      {"role": "user", "content": "Explain the cancellation window in the customer's language using the locale policy."}
    ]
  }'
04
Model choice

Why gemini-2.5-flash is the primary model

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the first choice for a multilingual, latency-sensitive chat workload.

Use gpt-5.4-mini only for languages where it passes the same native review. Send policy-heavy or mixed-language failures to Terra.

05
Acceptance

Acceptance checks for multilingual chatbots

MetricPass condition
Intent preservationThe requested action and constraints remain unchanged in every supported language
Terminology accuracyProtected product, legal, and domain terms follow the locale glossary
Native-speaker acceptanceA native reviewer accepts meaning, tone, and fluency without substantive rewrite
Latency and cost by languageEach launch language meets its own response-time and conversation-cost budget
06
Failure handling

Failures to handle before deployment

  • Assuming English predicts every language
  • Machine-translating the evaluation set
  • Ignoring locale policy
  • Averaging away weak languages
07
Output

Returned output and run records

A locale-correct reply with protected terms preserved and no policy content imported from another region.

Record the model ID, request ID, token usage, retries, validation result, and final disposition for every production run.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use translated English prompts?

Use native examples because intent, tone, terminology, and policy change by locale.

Should one model handle every language?

Only if per-language tests pass; routing languages to separately tested models can be safer.

How should code-switching be tested?

Use real mixed-language messages and verify intent and required terminology are preserved.

Test this setup with your own inputs

Compare the primary and fallback models with the same requests, tools, and validation rules.

Compare models