Currently, we use `assert` in RPC code to document logic and code assumptions. However, it seems a bit extreme to abort all of Bitcoin Core on an assert failure in one of the RPC threads. I suggest to replace all checks with a macro `THROW_LOGIC_ERROR_IF_ASSERT_FAILS(condition)` that does what it says. That logic error will then be returned to the rpc caller and will include instructions to report the error to our issue tracker.

Any objections or naming suggestions for that macro?
if (!ExtractDestination(script, dest)) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, strprintf("Descriptor does not have a corresponding address"));
            }
            addresses.push_back(EncodeDestination(dest));
        }
    }
    
    if (addresses.empty()) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_MISC_ERROR, "Unexpected empty result");
    }
    return addresses;
}
static UniValue verifymessage(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
{
            RPCHelpMan{"verifymessage",
                "\nVerify a signed message\n",
                {
                    {"address", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The bitcoin address to use for the signature."},
                    {"signature", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The signature provided by the signer in base 64 encoding (see signmessage)."},
                    {"message", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The message that was signed."},
                },
                RPCResult{
            "true|false   (boolean) If the signature is verified or not.\n"
                },
                RPCExamples{
            "\nUnlock the wallet for 30 seconds\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletpassphrase", "\"mypassphrase\" 30") +
            "\nCreate the signature\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("signmessage", "\"1D1ZrZNe3JUo7ZycKEYQQiQAWd9y54F4XX\" \"my message\"") +
            "\nVerify the signature\n"