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?
{
            RPCHelpMan{"getmempooldescendants",
                "\nIf txid is in the mempool, returns all in-mempool descendants.\n",
                {
                    {"txid", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The transaction id (must be in mempool)"},
                    {"verbose", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "false", "True for a json object, false for array of transaction ids"},
                },
                {
                    RPCResult{"for verbose = false",
            "[                       (json array of strings)\n"
            "  \"transactionid\"           (string) The transaction id of an in-mempool descendant transaction\n"
            "  ,...\n"
            "]\n"
                    },
                    RPCResult{"for verbose = true",
            "{                           (json object)\n"
            "  \"transactionid\" : {       (json object)\n"
            + EntryDescriptionString()
            + "  }, ...\n"
            "}\n"
                    },
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("getmempooldescendants", "\"mytxid\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("getmempooldescendants", "\"mytxid\"")
                },
            }.Check(request);
    bool fVerbose = false;
    if (!request.params[1].isNull())