Fix/bad syntax binding error variants

[jcnelson]

Description

This PR improves the expressiveness of CheckErrors::BadSyntaxBinding and some related binding errors to indicate both the kind of binding considered, as well as the specific structural deficiency. Specifically, it differentiates between faulty let-bindings, function definitions, and tuple constructors, and it treats all instance of invalid type signatures found in top-level definitions as CheckErrors::BadSyntaxBinding while reporting the inner CheckErrors error message and innermost faulty binding in the signature.

For example, in develop today, these errors are reported.

$ echo '(let ((u1 u2)) true)' | clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
BadSyntaxBinding
$ echo '(define-public (foo (string -19)) (ok true))' | clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
BadSyntaxBinding
$ echo '(tuple oops (foo u1))' | clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
TupleExpectsPairs

In this PR, these same errors are as follows:

$ echo '(let ((u1 u2)) true)' | /tmp/clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
BadSyntaxBinding(NotAtom(Let, 0, SymbolicExpression { expr: LiteralValue(UInt(1)), id: 5 }))
$ echo '(define-public (foo (string -19)) (ok true))' | /tmp/clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
BadSyntaxBinding(BadTypeSignature(0, SymbolicExpression { expr: LiteralValue(Int(-19)), id: 7 }, "supplied type description is invalid"))
$ echo '(tuple oops (foo u1))' | /tmp/clarity-cli eval_raw - | jq -r '.error.analysis' | head -n 1
BadSyntaxBinding(NotList(TupleCons, 0, SymbolicExpression { expr: Atom(ClarityName("oops")), id: 3 }))

Right now, this PR does not touch CheckErrors::BadMayTypeDefinition, but I'm happy to add that as well.

Applicable issues

• partially fixes [VM] Anemic VM errors in type-checking bindings #6337

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Looking at where the errors were used, it does not appear that any changes are consensus critical. I could not find any place in the codebase where the caller matches on a CheckErrors value affected by this PR.

Checklist

• Test coverage for new or modified code paths
• Changelog is updated
• Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
• New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo
• New integration test(s) added to bitcoin-tests.yml

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.99634% with 71 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.73%. Comparing base (799953e) to head (1396f49).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ty/src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_05/tests/mod.rs	43.47%	26 Missing ⚠️
...ity/src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_1/tests/mod.rs	84.88%	26 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/analysis/errors.rs	86.11%	10 Missing ⚠️
...y/src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_1/natives/mod.rs	87.50%	7 Missing ⚠️
.../src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_05/natives/mod.rs	94.73%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (72.73%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6343      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    81.00%   72.73%   -8.28%     
===========================================
  Files          541      541              
  Lines       347855   348261     +406     
===========================================
- Hits        281772   253293   -28479     
- Misses       66083    94968   +28885     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
clarity/src/vm/analysis/read_only_checker/mod.rs	87.81% <100.00%> (+1.17%)	⬆️
clarity/src/vm/analysis/tests/mod.rs	76.67% <100.00%> (-23.33%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_05/mod.rs	89.84% <100.00%> (-0.52%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/analysis/type_checker/v2_1/mod.rs	90.05% <100.00%> (-0.35%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/errors.rs	60.52% <ø> (-13.16%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/functions/define.rs	98.46% <100.00%> (-0.38%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/functions/mod.rs	98.03% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
clarity/src/vm/functions/tuples.rs	83.33% <100.00%> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/representations.rs	84.24% <100.00%> (+2.76%)	⬆️
clarity/src/vm/tests/datamaps.rs	82.54% <100.00%> (-16.54%)	⬇️
... and 8 more

... and 285 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 799953e...1396f49. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.