Spike: PoC of expo dev tools plugin

### What is this about?

We want to explore what building our own expo dev tools plugins might look like. For example, we can begin leveraging this for better insights into the app. Here's instructions on how to create an example - https://docs.expo.dev/debugging/create-devtools-plugins/

### Scenario

_No response_

### Design

_No response_

### Technical Details

- Create a PoC of a plugin with 2 way communication
- Ex 1 - RPC calls from snaps or that are received RPCMethodMiddleware
- Ex 2 - Hooking up our performance tool with the plugin UI would be nice to see. TLDR, it's used to measure performance between flows - [https://www.notion.so/metamask-consensys/MetaMask-Mobile-Debugging-18cf86d67d68801688d8e7b77bd0bbb2?source=copy_link#1e0f86d67d6880[…]c6e7a3c6452746](https://www.notion.so/metamask-consensys/MetaMask-Mobile-Debugging-18cf86d67d68801688d8e7b77bd0bbb2?source=copy_link#1e0f86d67d688059b0c6e7a3c6452746)

### Threat Modeling Framework

_No response_

### Acceptance Criteria

_No response_

### Stakeholder review needed before the work gets merged

- [ ] Engineering (needed in most cases)
- [ ] Design
- [ ] Product
- [ ] QA (automation tests are required to pass before merging PRs but not all changes are covered by automation tests - please review if QA is needed beyond automation tests)
- [ ] Security
- [ ] Legal
- [ ] Marketing
- [ ] Management (please specify)
- [ ] Other (please specify)

### References

_No response_

Start with the linked Expo instructions for creating dev tools plugins, then review the proposed two-way communication examples involving RPC calls and RPCMethodMiddleware. Consider the performance tool and plugin UI as a possible second path. The issue does not define acceptance criteria, files, tests, or a finished PoC.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.