[Bug] WASM contract remove_stake_full_limit still requires limit_price even though API/docs say it is optional

[jonathanchang31]

Summary

remove_stake_full_limit still appears to require a mandatory limit_price in the WASM contract interface, even though the recent merged fix in #2630 says the type should be Option<u64> and the docs describe it as optional.

Problem

There is a mismatch between the intended API, the docs, and the current WASM contract wrapper/test surface.

Expected behavior

The WASM contract interface, generated/tested usage, and docs should all agree on the same API shape.
If remove_stake_full_limit is supposed to support no limit price, the WASM wrapper should expose Option<u64> consistently and the tests/docs should reflect that.

Actual behavior

The current codebase appears internally inconsistent:

• documentation says optional
• recent merged PR intent says optional
• ink! wrapper and e2e usage still require a non-optional u64

Why this matters

This can confuse contract developers and may cause downstream integrations to implement the wrong ABI or message encoding for remove_stake_full_limit.

Reproduction / inspection points

• PR: #2630
• Docs: docs/wasm-contracts.md
• Wrapper: contract-tests/bittensor/lib.rs
• Test usage: contract-tests/test/wasm.contract.test.ts

[jonathanchang31]

@anderdc I would like to contribute here, could you assign this on me?