Is there a term for nicknames which are inserted between first and last names?

The structure, would probably be a figure of interruption. Probably parembole (or paremptosis, which seems to have the same meaning), but maybe also parenthesis. This is what Silvae rhetorica says about parembole: 'A figure of interruption closely related to parenthesis. Parembole occurs when the interrupting matter has a connection to the sentence subject, whereas the interrupting material of parenthesis need have no such connection.' (Also parenthesis is usually with brackets, but doesn't seem to be a requirement, based on the silvae rhetorica, which just describes it as 'Insertion of a verbal unit that interrupts normal syntactical flow.')

It's very close to diacope, which is a word sandwich, but the first and last names would have to be the same. Ie. Bond, James Bond'. Tmesis is very close to it, though it's technically an interruption of a single word. ie. 'unbe-freaking-lievable'. You could also argue that by making it 'Mike -no stop- Granger', you are transforming the name into a tricolon by splitting it into three parts, which is probably why it sounds more impactful.

The 'the wrench' and 'no stop' parts would be Antonomasia, which is to substitute a descriptive phrase for a proper name, or using a proper name to describe a quality associated with it. Examples of descriptive phrases as names: 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' is used instead of Voldemort in the Harry potter series, or people can refer to Elvis Presley as simply 'The King.' Some examples of the second use are: to call someone 'Cupid' if they are good at matchmaking/ enjoy matchmaking, calling someone 'Sherlock' if they have just deduced something/ are good at working things out or by praising a child for being clever by calling them a 'little Einstein.'

Although a nickname could also be an archetypal name, below is a good comparison between the two, taken from: https://literaryterms.net/antonomasia/

Antonomasia vs. Archetypal Names- Antonomasia and Archetypal names both provide characters with nicknames, but they do so in different ways. Whereas antonomasia is not a proper name, archetypal names are proper names. They are like antonomasia in that they use characteristics of a person, but they are used directly within the name.

Ie. You have a friend who is from Texas.

Archetypal Name: Tex

(Tex references Texas, and for this reason, this person’s name is a reflection of where they once lived.)

Antonomasia: Cowboy Dave

(By calling your friend Cowboy Dave, you are referencing Texan culture, but not directly naming him after it. For this reason, the nickname is considered antonomasia rather than an archetypal name.)

From the Latin, it's a cognomen.