test(evm_tools): revive the opcode-count test against in-repo inputs

[mkzung]

Closes #3326, taking the second option there: rewrite rather than delete, so the
opcode-count tracer gets its first coverage.

The test asked for root_relative, defined in a sibling tree, and pointed at
fixtures/evm_tools_testdata, which no download step provides. It now uses the
client_clis transition inputs. Fixture 3 is the only alloc there with code, 0x600140,
so the call runs PUSH1 then BLOCKHASH. Those inputs are a plain transition rather than a
state test, so the run names the fork instead of passing --state-test.

The --ignore in the spec-tools target goes with it. Only one target carries it on
forks/amsterdam; the issue mentions two, which holds on another branch.

One thing I did not decide: test_execution_specs.py imports Berlin while this names
Frontier. The count is the same either way, but say if Berlin is the intended fork.

Testing

uv run pytest -n 4 tests/evm_tools: 42 passed, with the file collected for the first
time. I restored the pre-change file from git and confirmed it still errors with
fixture 'root_relative' not found, and flipping the expected count to PUSH1: 2 fails,
so the assertion really reads the tracer.

Static analysis: ruff check, ruff format --check, codespell, vulture,
ethereum-spec-lint and mypy all pass.

Claude Code was used for implementation assistance, covering the test rewrite and this
description. All changes have been reviewed, understood and manually tested by me.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.50%. Comparing base (4f17c37) to head (8b2ec15).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #3336   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            93.50%   93.50%           
================================================
  Files                  624      624           
  Lines                37070    37070           
  Branches              3394     3394           
================================================
  Hits                 34661    34661           
  Misses                1653     1653           
  Partials               756      756           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	93.50% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[marioevz]

Hi @mkzung, thank you for putting the effort of addressing the issue with your PR. We currently are undergoing a big refactor of this file and many others in this same folder in #3307, and unfortunately I've rebased your changes and the fix is not compatible with the it, and is going to cause conflicts during the rebase. I think the best course of action for now is to close this PR, and try to address this issue directly in #3307. Again, thanks for this effort! Closing for now.